Perplexity Solved Solutions, Inc. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.

United States District Court for the Northern District of California · August 5, 2025 · No. 3:25-cv-00989

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California grants Mitchell Silberg & Knupp LLP and its attorneys’ motion to withdraw as counsel for Perplexity Solved Solutions, Inc. based on an irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. The withdrawal is conditioned on counsel continuing to accept service until substitute counsel appears, and the court extends the deadline to obtain new counsel and continues the case management conference.

Court
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Writing for the Court
Jacqueline Scott Corley
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Decision date
August 5, 2025
Docket number
3:25-cv-00989
Procedural posture
The court considered Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant's counsel's motion to withdraw as attorneys of record.
Standard of review
The decision whether to grant or deny an attorney's motion to withdraw is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.
Precedential value
Unknown; district court order with no published reporter citation
Disposition
other

Topics

civil procedurecommercial litigationdefault

Practice areas

Civil procedureLegal ethics and professional responsibilityCommercial litigation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether counsel should be permitted to withdraw as attorneys of record for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant.
  2. What conditions should accompany counsel's withdrawal, including service of documents and the deadline for Plaintiff to obtain substitute counsel.

Holdings

  1. The court may permit counsel to withdraw when a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship makes continued representation unreasonably difficult under California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(4), subject to court approval where required by the local rules.
  2. Withdrawal may be conditioned on existing counsel continuing to accept service of documents for forwarding until the corporate party obtains substitute counsel, and the corporate party must obtain licensed counsel to continue litigating.

Key quotations

Ultimately, the decision to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. (at 1)
The Court continues the August 27, 2025 Case Management Conference to September 17, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. via Zoom video. (at 2)

Factual background

Counsel attested that an irreparable breakdown had occurred in the attorney-client relationship and that the firm could not continue to represent Plaintiff effectively. Counsel notified Plaintiff of the intent to withdraw, Plaintiff stated it was substituting counsel, and Plaintiff then did not respond to further follow-up communications. No further case deadlines had been set beyond the scheduled case management conference.

Procedural history

Mitchell Silberg & Knupp LLP and attorneys Eleanor M. Lackman and Marissa B. Lewis moved to withdraw as counsel for Perplexity Solved Solutions, Inc. Defendant did not oppose withdrawal but requested conditions concerning substitution of counsel. The court granted the motion, conditioned continued service through existing counsel, granted Plaintiff 30 days to obtain new counsel, and continued the case management conference.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…