Memphis Meats, Inc. v. Tandikul
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-03072
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Memphis Meats v. Tandikul, Judge Rogers tentatively granted defense counsel’s withdrawal request, requiring more information and warning Tandikul to obtain new counsel.
Defense counsel and Napat Tandikul were affected. Counsel had to provide supplemental information and proof of notice; Tandikul was ordered to obtain new counsel or risk having her answer struck if she failed to participate actively.
What happened
Memphis Meats, Inc. v. Tandikul concerns defense counsel’s request to stop representing Napat Tandikul. Memphis Meats objected, but the court said the objection did not overcome the reasons supporting withdrawal.
The court tentatively granted the request. It ordered counsel to provide more information about communications with Tandikul, the transfer of legal files, and notice of Tandikul’s contact information. Tandikul was ordered to obtain new counsel by October 22, 2021, or risk having her answer struck if she did not actively participate. The court also vacated the scheduled hearing.
Judge Yvonne Rogers required these additional filings before deciding whether to allow the withdrawal finally. The court said it could deny the motion if counsel failed to comply with the order.
The detailed version
- Memphis Meats, Inc. v. Tandikul · No. 4:21-cv-03072
- Yvonne Rogers
- Sept. 14, 2021
Background
Defense counsel moved to withdraw from representing Defendant Napat Tandikul. The motion included counsel’s declaration, and Plaintiff Memphis Meats, Inc. objected. The court noted the criminal overlay mentioned in the case and the firing of the law firm. It rejected the argument that the case becoming more difficult to litigate justified denying withdrawal.
Orders concerning withdrawal
The court tentatively granted the motion to withdraw, subject to additional information. By September 20, 2021, counsel had to file a supplemental declaration stating that counsel had spoken directly with Tandikul, or explaining how counsel had sent the information if Tandikul was not responsive. Counsel also had to state that counsel had discussed delivery of the legal files and other consequences of withdrawal with Tandikul. Counsel had to provide Tandikul’s current or last-known address, telephone number, and email address.
Counsel also had to file proof that Tandikul received notice ordering her to obtain counsel in the United States by October 22, 2021, and requiring new counsel to file a notice of appearance by that date. The notice warned that if Tandikul did not obtain counsel and did not participate actively, the court would consider striking her answer. It also explained that, without a new attorney, Tandikul would represent herself and would remain responsible for following court rules and applicable laws.
Disposition
The court stated that it might deny the withdrawal motion if counsel did not comply with the specified requirements. It vacated the September 21, 2021 hearing, concluding that the motion could be decided without oral argument. The order was signed by Judge Yvonne Rogers.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.