Versales v. AI Coin, Inc.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:24-cv-04044
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Versales v. AI Coin, Judge Corley granted counsel’s withdrawal motion and required remaining counsel to retain local co-counsel.
RIMȎN, P.C. and Ivan L. Tjoe were permitted to withdraw as AI Coin, Inc.’s counsel. AI Coin remains represented by John Lane of Gunner Cooke, but Lane must retain local co-counsel by August 29, 2025 if he remains counsel of record.
What happened
In Versales v. AI Coin, Inc., the court considered a request by RIMȎN, P.C. and Ivan L. Tjoe to stop representing AI Coin, Inc. They said AI Coin had not paid their invoices under the fee agreement.
The court found that AI Coin had breached the agreement by not paying the invoices and that the lawyers had taken reasonable steps to avoid harming the company. AI Coin remains represented by John Lane of Gunner Cooke for now.
Judge Corley granted the withdrawal motion. If Lane remains AI Coin’s lawyer, he must retain new local co-counsel by August 29, 2025, or be prepared to address possible loss of permission to practice in the case.
The detailed version
- Versales v. AI Coin, Inc. · No. 3:24-cv-04044
- Jacquelyn Corley
- July 10, 2025
Background
RIMȎN, P.C. and Ivan L. Tjoe moved to withdraw as counsel for AI Coin, Inc. RIMȎN had agreed to act as local counsel for initial filings and local practice matters. It sent AI Coin invoices in November and December 2024 and January 2025, but AI Coin did not pay them. The initial retainer had been exhausted, and AI Coin did not dispute the invoices.
RIMȎN notified AI Coin and John Lane of Gunner Cooke that it intended to withdraw. Lane did not oppose the motion but said he might also need to seek withdrawal. The court found that RIMȎN had taken reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable harm to AI Coin, including notifying the company that it could not represent itself if Lane also withdrew. The court also noted that RIMȎN had not been involved in substantive matters in the case.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 11-5(a), which requires court approval before counsel may withdraw. It also applied California professional-conduct rules, which permit withdrawal when a client breaches an agreement concerning legal fees or expenses.
The court determined that AI Coin breached its fee agreement by failing to make timely payments. Because the breach supported withdrawal and RIMȎN had taken reasonable steps to limit prejudice, the court granted RIMȎN and Mr. Tjoe’s motion to withdraw.
Ruling and Effect
The court vacated the scheduled July 17, 2025 hearing and granted the motion to withdraw. The order disposes of Docket No. 36. AI Coin remains represented by Lane, so it does not need to obtain substitute counsel immediately. However, because Lane is not local counsel and RIMȎN’s withdrawal left him without the local co-counsel required for his appearance, he must retain substitute local co-counsel by August 29, 2025 if he remains AI Coin’s counsel of record. The court stated that, if Lane remains counsel and no local counsel appears by the September 3, 2025 case-management conference, Lane should be prepared to address possible revocation of his permission to practice in the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.