ORDER (Emg Mot WD Atty — ECF No. 142

PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the court on Christensen & Jenson, P.C.'s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record (ECF No. 142) for individual defendants Jonathan P. Hanley and Sandra X. Hanley, and corporate defendants Consumer Defense, LLC, Preferred Law, PLLC, American Home Loan Counselors, Consumer Defense Group, LLC, American Home Loans, LLC, AM Property Management, LLC, FMG Partners, LLC, Brown Legal, Inc., and Zinly, LLC. The court has reviewed the motion, plaintiff's Non-Opposition (ECF No. 143), and attorney Gregory Miles' Joinder (ECF No. 144) as local counsel.

The motion was filed an emergency motion because the parties "need to know immediately whether counsel for defendants will be permitted to withdraw" as any delay will reduce the time for the parties to meet concerning existing court-imposed deadlines. Additionally, counsel represents that the attorney-client relationship has irreparably broken down and continued representation would impose an unreasonable financial burden. Counsel has not been paid for substantial work performed. Defense counsel has had great difficulty in communicating with his client, the client has failed to cooperate with him, and has failed to pay costs and fees. John Lauritzen and Karra Porter of Christensen & Jensen, and local counsel Gregory A. Miles therefore seek leave to withdraw as counsel of record.

A Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 121) was entered August 2, 2018, which stablished a March 15, 2019 discovery cutoff.

The court will grant the motion to withdraw but require the corporate defendants to retain substitute counsel. A corporation cannot appear except through counsel. See Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993); Reading Int'l, Inc. v. Malulani Grp., Ltd., 814 F.3d 1046, 1053 (9th Cir. 2016). The Ninth Circuit has held that default judgment is an appropriate sanction for a corporation's failure to retain counsel for the duration of the litigation. United States v. High Country Broadcasting, 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993).

Having reviewed and considered the matter, and for good cause shown,

IT IS ORDERED: