Case Information
*1 Case 2:08-cv-00553-GEB-EFB Document 53 Filed 08/11/09 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA THE ORCHARD ENTERPRISE, Inc., a Delaware corporation, ) ) ) ) 2:08-cv-00553 )
Plaintiff, v. ) ORDER [*] ) ) ) ) ) )
TUFAMERICA, Inc., a New York corporation,
Defendants.
Defendant’s attorney’s motion to withdraw as Defendant’s counsel, filed June 26, 2009, is denied since the movant’s conclusory statements that “[a] substantial strategic difference of opinion, [and] breakdown of attorney client communication,” do not justify granting the motion. Moreover, Defendant would be prejudiced if the motion is granted because a corporation “can only appear in [this] court proceeding only through an attorney at law.” In re Highley , 459 F.2d 554, 555 (9th Cir. 1972); see also L.R. 85-183(a) (“A corporation
or other entity may appear only by an attorney.”); Lindsey v. Admiral *2 Case 2:08-cv-00553-GEB-EFB Document 53 Filed 08/11/09 Page 2 of 2 Ins. Co., 804 F. Supp. 47, 52 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (noting a corporation “cannot appear pro per.”). This prejudice is not discussed in the motion. Further, it has not been shown why counsel should be allowed to withdraw when trial is scheduled to commence on October 27, 2009. Dated: August 10, 2009
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge
2
[*] This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. R. 78-230(h). 1