Tandikul

Memphis Meats, Inc. v. Tandikul

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 14, 20214:21-cv-03072California612 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEMPHIS MEATS, INC.,

Case No. 21-cv-3072-YGR Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING COUNSEL OF RECORD v. TO SUBMIT FURTHER INFORMATION RE: WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL FOR

NAPAT TANDIKUL, DEFENDANT

14 Defendant. Dkt. No. 39

The Court has received the motion of defendant’s counsel (“Counsel”) to withdraw from representation of Defendant Napat Tandikul (“the Client”) in the above-captioned action, along with the accompanying declaration and plaintiff’s objection thereto. (Dkt. Nos. 39, 41, and 42.) The hearing on such motion is currently set for September 21, 2021. Plaintiff’s objection does not persuade, especially given the criminal overlay and the firing of the law firm. While clearly more convenient, plaintiff’s preferences do not control the legal basis for granting the motion. That litigating this case will become more difficult is not a basis for …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.