TMCO LTD. v. Green Light Energy Solutions R&D Corp.
- Kandis Westmore
- 4:17-cv-00997
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In TMCO LTD. v. Green Light Energy Solutions R&D Corp., Judge Westmore denied counsel’s withdrawal request without prejudice because the corporation lacked replacement counsel.
Green Light Energy Solutions R&D Corp., defense counsel Svetlana V. Kamyshanskaya, and representative Alex Feerer.
What happened
TMCO LTD. v. Green Light Energy Solutions R&D Corp. involved defense counsel’s request to substitute or withdraw from representing Green Light Energy Solutions R&D Corp. The corporation had not found a new lawyer, and its representative, Alex Feerer, said he would appear for it personally.
The court explained that corporations cannot appear in federal court without a lawyer. It also noted that Mr. Feerer was not licensed to practice law in California. A motion to amend the judgment was pending and could affect Mr. Feerer personally, making the timing of counsel’s withdrawal especially important.
Judge Kandis Westmore denied the request to withdraw without prejudice because withdrawal could cause unfairness or delay in the proceedings. The order did not state that the request could never be renewed.
The detailed version
- TMCO LTD. v. Green Light Energy Solutions R&D Corp. · No. 4:17-cv-00997
- Kandis Westmore
- Jan. 15, 2020
Background
On January 13, 2020, defense counsel Svetlana V. Kamyshanskaya asked the court to approve her substitution or withdrawal as counsel for Green Light Energy Solutions R&D Corp. The corporation had not obtained new counsel. Its representative, Alex Feerer, consented to the withdrawal and stated that he would personally appear for the corporation.
The court cited the rule that corporations cannot appear in federal court except through counsel. It also stated that Mr. Feerer was not licensed to practice law in California.
Related Proceedings
A motion was pending for leave to amend the judgment to add alter-ego defendants, including Mr. Feerer. The court had also issued an order requiring the defendant and/or non-parties to explain why their opposition to that motion was late. The court had warned that failure to respond would result in the motion being granted as unopposed and that Mr. Feerer would be personally affected. A hearing on the motion to amend the judgment was scheduled for February 20, 2020.
Ruling
Judge Westmore denied Ms. Kamyshanskaya’s motion to withdraw without prejudice. The court ruled that withdrawal would work an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding. The opinion did not otherwise resolve the pending motion to amend the judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.