Valjakka
Valjakka v. Netflix, Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LAURI VALJAKKA, Case No. 22-cv-01490-JST
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
9 v. WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
10 NETFLIX, INC., Re: ECF No. 260 Defendant. 11
12 13 Before the Court is attorney William P. Ramey’s motion to withdraw as counsel for 14 Plaintiff Lauri Valjakka. ECF No. 260. The Court will grant the motion. 15 The crux of Ramey’s motion is that Ramey LLP is “not being compensated for its 16 services.” ECF No. 260 at 3. Ramey represents Valjakka by agreement with third party AiPi 17 LLC, and states that “Ramey LLP only assumed representation because AiPi LLC guaranteed 18 payment,” but that sometime after this litigation commenced, “AiPi LLC quit funding the 19 lawsuit.” Id.; see also ECF No. 260-1 ¶ 4. Ramey also states that Valjakka has refused “to pay 20 Ramey LLP for its time.” ECF No. 263 at 2. Ramey LLP is now owed $1,163,166 in fees. ECF 21 No. 263-2 at 3. Ramey contends that “the lack of compensation is a financial burden that…