Oseguera v. Zhu
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:17-cv-03252
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Oseguera v. Zhu, Judge Hamilton granted in part and denied in part a counsel-substitution request, allowing Zhu to represent himself but requiring Fusan Corporation to hire counsel.
Longhua Zhu may represent himself. Fusan Corporation must retain qualified counsel by March 12, 2020, or may face an entry of default. Attorney Danning Jiang may withdraw but must continue forwarding filings and satisfy the stated conditions until that date.
What happened
In Oseguera v. Zhu, defendants Longhua Zhu and Fusan Corporation asked to substitute counsel and listed themselves as representing themselves. Attorney Danning Jiang also sought to withdraw after reporting that the defendants had not responded to his communications and had unpaid invoices.
The court allowed Zhu, a person, to represent himself, but denied that request for Fusan Corporation because a corporation must appear through a lawyer admitted to practice in the court. The court found that Jiang had given reasonable notice and that withdrawal was justified.
Judge Hamilton allowed Jiang to withdraw, gave Fusan Corporation until March 12, 2020, to retain qualified counsel, and warned that failing to do so could result in default. The court terminated Jiang’s separate withdrawal motion as moot and required him to forward filings and address client-property obligations until that date.
The detailed version
- Oseguera v. Zhu · No. 4:17-cv-03252
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Feb. 11, 2020
Background
Defendants Longhua Zhu and Fusan Corporation, together with attorney Danning Jiang, filed an application to substitute counsel on February 6, 2020. The application listed the defendants’ new counsel as “pro per,” meaning that they intended to represent themselves. The contact information for both defendants appeared to belong to Zhu, and Zhu had not shown that he was a member of the bar of the Northern District of California.
Jiang had separately filed a motion to withdraw. He stated that he had repeatedly contacted his clients since November 27, 2019, but that they had not returned his emails, telephone calls, or voicemails for at least thirty days. He also stated that the clients’ conduct made it unreasonably difficult to represent them effectively and that they had overdue and unpaid invoices.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that an individual may represent himself or herself, but a corporation, partnership, or other entity may appear only through a lawyer who is a member of the court’s bar. Therefore, Zhu could represent himself, but Fusan Corporation could not represent itself.
The court found that Jiang’s communications gave the defendants reasonable notice of his intent to withdraw. Applying the applicable California professional-conduct rules, the court also found that withdrawal was justified because the clients’ conduct made effective representation unreasonably difficult, because of the unpaid invoices, and because Fusan Corporation had agreed to replace Jiang with self-representation.
Ruling and Effect
The court granted Zhu’s application to substitute himself as his own representative and denied the application as to Fusan Corporation. It permitted Jiang to withdraw. Fusan Corporation was given until March 12, 2020, to retain qualified counsel, and substitute counsel had to file a notice of appearance by that date. The court cautioned that failing to do so could result in an entry of default against Fusan Corporation.
As a condition of withdrawal, Jiang had to continue receiving and forwarding filings until March 12, 2020, release any client property as required by California rules, and immediately inform Zhu of these conditions. The court terminated Jiang’s motion to withdraw as moot because it had permitted the withdrawal through the substitution proceedings.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.