UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 24, 2010
VITALIX S.A. DE C.V., PLAINTIFF,
GRUPO CAROSSI SOCIEDAD ANONIMA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew Senior, U.S. District Court Judge
ORDER re: Plaintiff Vitalix's Counsels' Motion to Withdraw 
Plaintiff's Counsel, Adorno Yoss Alvarado & Smith, APC, filed its Motion to Withdraw  on October 22, 2010. The matter was originally set for hearing on November 23, 2010. Having taken the matter under submission on November 16, 2010, and having reviewed all papers submitted pertaining to this motion, the Court NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS:
Plaintiff's Counsels' Motion is hereby DENIED.
A motion to withdraw as counsel may only be made upon "written notice given reasonably in advance to the client" because the client will be forced to proceed pro se. L.R. 83-18.104.22.168. Moreover, because a corporation may not appear in any action or proceeding pro se, an attorney seeking to withdraw from corporate representation must give notice to the corporation of "the consequences of its inability to appear pro se."
L.R. 83-22.214.171.124; see also Urethane Foam Experts, Inc. v. Latimer, 37 Cal. Rptr. 2d 404 (1995).
As Plaintiff's Counsels have not indicated that proper notice has been given to their client, the Court finds that allowing withdrawal of Plaintiff's Counsels at this time would prejudice Plaintiff Vitalix. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Counsels' Motion to Withdraw at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.