Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 44-1 Filed 03/26/19 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`HARMEET K. DHILLON (SBN: 207873)
`harmeet@dhillonlaw.com
`NITOJ P. SINGH (SBN: 265005)
`nsingh@dhillonlaw.com
`DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
`177 Post Street, Suite 700
`San Francisco, California 94108
`Telephone: (415) 433-1700
`Facsimile: (415) 520-6593
`
`Attorneys for Konda Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`KONDA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
`California corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`FLEX LOGIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
`Delaware corporation, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case Number: 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
`COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF KONDA
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`Judge:
`Court:
`
`
`Hon. Lucy H. Koh
`8, 4th Floor
`
`
`
`
`
`Memorandum in Support of Motion to Withdraw as Counsel
`
`Case Number: 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 44-1 Filed 03/26/19 Page 2 of 5
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`The Dhillon Law Group Inc. (“DLG”), counsel for Plaintiff Konda Technologies, Inc.
`
`(“Konda Tech”), hereby moves for leave of this Court to allow DLG to withdraw as counsel for
`
`Konda Tech in this action. DLG makes this Motion on the grounds that: 1) there has been a breach of
`
`this parties’ engagement agreement; 2) Konda Tech consents to this Motion; 3) Konda Tech’s
`
`conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for DLG to carry out representation effectively; 4) as
`
`Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss will not be heard until mid-July 2019, and this case is in its infancy,
`
`withdrawal will not prejudice the parties; and 5) the Court and the parties will benefit from DLG’s
`
`withdrawal and Konda Tech’s retention of new counsel.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`As shown below, California’s Rules of Professional Conduct and the rules of this Court
`
`11
`
`permit withdrawal of counsel in circumstances such as these. As such, this Motion should be granted.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`Konda Tech filed its Complaint in this action on December 17, 2018. Defendant Flex Logix
`
`14
`
`Technologies, Inc. (“Flex Logix”) filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 24, 2019, with a May 9, 2019
`
`15
`
`hearing date. (Dkt. No. 21.) After Konda Tech submitted an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on
`
`16
`
`February 21, 2019, the parties stipulated, and the Court allowed, that Konda Tech be permitted to
`
`17
`
`amend its Complaint and that the original Motion to Dismiss would be denied as moot. (Dkt. Nos. 26,
`
`18
`
`29, and 30.)
`
`19
`
`Konda Tech filed its First Amended Complaint on March 4, 2019. That same day, DLG
`
`20
`
`advised Konda Tech in writing that should it not retain new counsel to substitute in as lead counsel by
`
`21
`
`March 22, 2019, DLG would be moving to withdraw as counsel. Decl. of Nitoj P. Singh (“Singh
`
`22
`
`Decl.”), ¶ 3. Konda Tech was, and remains in, material breach of its engagement agreement with
`
`23
`
`DLG, and has not cured that breach after receiving notice of the breach. Singh Decl., ¶ 4.
`
`24
`
`Flex Logix filed its Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint on March 18, 2019.
`
`25
`
`(Dkt. No. 38.) Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and the Court’s Order, Konda Tech must submit its
`
`26
`
`response to the Motion to Dismiss by April 8, 2019, and Flex Logix must submit its reply within 14
`
`27
`
`days thereafter. (Dkt. Nos. 30 and 38.)
`
`The Initial Case Management Conference is currently set for April 3, 2019. The parties’ Joint
`
`28
`
`
`
`Memorandum in Support of Motion to Withdraw as Counsel
`
`Case Number: 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 44-1 Filed 03/26/19 Page 3 of 5
`
`Case Management Statement is due on March 27, 2019.
`
`
`
`Defendants Markovic and Wang have until April 5, 2019 to respond to Konda Tech’s First
`
`Amended Complaint. It is anticipated that they too will file a Motion to Dismiss, and that said motion
`
`will not be heard before July 11, 2019.
`
`DLG notified the Court and Defendants that it intends to move to withdraw as counsel on
`
`March 25, 2019. Singh Decl., ¶ 5. Konda Tech has been advised that it needs counsel should it wish
`
`to continue to litigate this matter following DLG’s withdrawal. Singh Decl., ¶ 6. Konda Tech
`
`consents to this Motion, while disputing it materially breached its engagement agreement with DLG.
`
`Singh Decl., ¶ 6. The parties’ differences of opinion on engagement and strategy, including this
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Motion, has rendered it unreasonably difficult for DLG to carry out its representation effectively.
`
`11
`
`Singh Decl., ¶ 7. Given these and other issues, there has been an irreconcilable breakdown of the
`
`12
`
`attorney-client relationship. Id.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`The Civil Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
`
`15
`
`California authorize an attorney to withdraw as counsel of record after he or she (1) provides written
`
`16
`
`notice to the client and all other parties in the action, and (2) the attorney obtains leave of court. Civ.
`
`17
`
`L.R. 11-5(a). The decision to permit counsel to withdraw is within the sound discretion of the trial
`
`18
`
`court. See U.S. v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009).
`
`19
`
`Withdrawal is governed by the California Rules of Professional Conduct. See Civ. L.R. 11-
`
`20
`
`4(a)(1); Nehad v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying California Rules of
`
`21
`
`Professional Conduct to attorney withdrawal). Courts in this District also look at several factors,
`
`22
`
`including: (1) the reasons counsel seeks to withdraw; (2) the possible prejudice that withdrawal may
`
`23
`
`cause to other litigants; (3) the harm that withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and
`
`24
`
`(4) the extent to which withdrawal will delay resolution of the case. Deal v. Countrywide Home
`
`25
`
`Loans, No. C 09-01643 SBA, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010).
`
`26
`
`California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16(b), state that an attorney may withdraw
`
`27
`
`from representation if: (4) the client by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer
`
`28
`
`to carry out the representation effectively; (5) the client breaches a material term of an agreement
`
`
`
`Memorandum in Support of Motion to Withdraw as Counsel
`
`Case Number: 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 44-1 Filed 03/26/19 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`with, or obligation, to the lawyer relating to the representation, and the lawyer has given the client a
`
`reasonable warning after the breach that the lawyer will withdraw unless the client fulfills the
`
`agreement or performs the obligation; and (6) the client knowingly and freely assents to termination
`
`of the representation.
`
`Withdrawal is permitted even though a corporation is the client. See, e.g., Pension Plan v.
`
`Yubacon Inc, No. C-12-04738 DMR, 2014 WL 1101659 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2014) (granting motion
`
`to withdraw representation of corporation even though the corporation had not yet retained new
`
`counsel). If granting a motion to withdraw leaves a party without counsel, the court may condition the
`
`withdrawal on the attorney agreeing to forward all communications from the Court to the former
`
`10
`
`client until new counsel is obtained. Civ. L.R. 11-5(b).
`
`11
`
`Here, withdrawal is permitted as Konda Tech is in material breach of its agreement with DLG,
`
`12
`
`and failing to cure that breach after notice; Konda Tech has consented to this Motion; and Konda
`
`13
`
`Tech’s conduct has rendered it unreasonably difficult for DLG to carry out its representation
`
`14
`
`effectively. Differences of opinion as to strategy have arisen between Konda Tech and DLG, and
`
`15
`
`given the other issues, there has been an irreconcilable breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.
`
`16
`
`Given the early stage of the case, and the July 11, 2019 scheduled Motion to Dismiss, granting
`
`17
`
`the withdrawal will not prejudice defendants, harm administration of justice, or significantly delay the
`
`18
`
`resolution of this action. Indeed, the Court and Defendants’ interests would be best served by the
`
`19
`
`withdrawal of DLG at this stage of the litigation, to be replaced with new counsel. Currently, no
`
`20
`
`deadlines have been set regarding patent disclosures, discovery, dispositive motions, or trial, thus
`
`21
`
`sufficient time exists for Konda Tech to retain new counsel and for said counsel to sufficiently
`
`22
`
`familiarize itself with this matter prior to any significant deadlines in this matter.
`
`23
`
`Konda Tech requests that, should this Motion be granted, this Action be stayed for 90 days so
`
`24
`
`that Konda Tech be afforded time to retain new counsel, and new counsel may have time to come up
`
`25
`
`to speed on all matters. Konda Tech argues that a 90 day stay is reasonable given that Flex Logix’s
`
`26
`
`Motion to Dismiss will not be heard until July 11, 2019, and given that it will take some time to find
`
`27
`
`counsel with the requisite technical and legal experience given the complexities of this dispute.
`
`28
`
`///
`
`
`
`Memorandum in Support of Motion to Withdraw as Counsel
`
`Case Number: 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 44-1 Filed 03/26/19 Page 5 of 5
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`Pursuant to California Rules of Professional Conduct and the rules of this Court, good cause
`
`exists to grant DLG leave to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Konda Technologies, Inc. As such, the
`
`DLG’s Motion should be granted. Should the Court require additional information from DLG, it is
`
`willing to provide the same for an in camera review by the Court. Nothing set forth in this Motion
`
`and any supporting papers is intended to waive, in any way, the attorney-client privilege between
`
`DLG and Konda Tech.
`
`Date: March 26, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
`
`By: /s/ Nitoj P. Singh
`Nitoj P. Singh
`
`Attorneys for Konda Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Memorandum in Support of Motion to Withdraw as Counsel
`
`Case Number: 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`