Sinclair v. Agile Web Studios
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:23-cv-02690
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sinclair v. Agile Web Studios, Judge Gilliam granted defense counsel’s withdrawal motion and required two LLC defendants to obtain new counsel within 21 days.
The order directly affects Haroon Manjlai and Defendants Dynamic Digital Solutions, LLC, and One Stop Computer Services LLC. The defendants must obtain new counsel within 21 days, and Mr. Manjlai must temporarily accept papers for forwarding to them.
What happened
In Sinclair v. Agile Web Studios, attorney Haroon Manjlai asked to withdraw as counsel for Dynamic Digital Solutions, LLC, and One Stop Computer Services LLC. He said the attorney-client relationship had broken down and that the defendants had stopped responding to communications.
The defendants received notice of the motion and the hearing but did not appear at the hearing. The court reviewed additional information from counsel privately and under seal, and considered whether withdrawal would unfairly harm the defendants, the plaintiffs, or the progress of the case.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the motion. Because the defendants are limited liability companies, they must obtain new counsel within 21 days. Until then, Mr. Manjlai must accept papers for forwarding to the defendants; if they do not obtain counsel, the court said it would be inclined to allow the plaintiffs’ counsel to seek entry of a default and default judgment.
The detailed version
- Sinclair v. Agile Web Studios · No. 4:23-cv-02690
- Haywood Gilliam
- June 17, 2024
Background
Haroon Manjlai, an attorney at Khan Law Group, LC, moved to withdraw as counsel for Defendants Dynamic Digital Solutions, LLC, and One Stop Computer Services LLC. He stated that the trust and confidence necessary for the attorney-client relationship no longer existed and that this made effective representation unreasonably difficult. In a declaration, he said the defendants had completely stopped responding to his communications despite numerous attempts to contact them.
Mr. Manjlai filed the motion on February 12, 2024, and notified the defendants of his intention to withdraw. He also told them that a representative should appear at the hearing. The court held the hearing on March 21, 2024, but the defendants did not appear. The court discussed the reasons for withdrawal privately with Mr. Manjlai and ordered a supplemental declaration and attachments to be filed under seal.
Legal standard
The court explained that counsel may withdraw only after a court order and after giving reasonable advance written notice to the client and other parties who have appeared. California professional-conduct rules also require court permission for permissive withdrawal and require an attorney to take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the client, including giving notice and allowing time to obtain new counsel.
Courts also balance the relevant equities, including the reason for withdrawal, possible prejudice to other litigants, harm to the administration of justice, and delay in resolving the case.
Ruling
The court found that the notice requirements were satisfied because the motion was filed sufficiently in advance and Mr. Manjlai gave additional notice before the hearing. Based on the hearing and the sealed declaration, the court found that withdrawal was permitted under the professional-conduct rules. It further found that withdrawal was just and would not cause undue prejudice or delay. The motion to withdraw was therefore granted.
The court stated that the two defendants, as limited liability companies, may appear in federal court only through counsel. They must obtain new counsel within 21 days of the order. During that period, Mr. Manjlai must accept service of papers for forwarding to the defendants unless they appear through other counsel, and he must notify the defendants of that condition.
The court did not enter a default or default judgment. Instead, it stated that if the defendants were unable to obtain counsel within 21 days, the court would be inclined to allow the plaintiffs’ counsel to seek entry of a default and a default judgment. The court also set a telephonic case-management conference for July 23, 2024, at 2:00 p.m.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.