Board of Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California et al v. C and C Concrete, Inc. et al
Filing
58
ORDER DENYING 55 Defendants' Counsel's Motion to Withdraw. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 04/10/2012. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
Northern District of California
10
San Francisco Division
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE
TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, et al.,
13
No. C 10-03344 LB
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
COUNSEL’S MOTION TO
WITHDRAW
Plaintiffs,
14
[Re: ECF No. 55]
v.
15
C AND C CONCRETE, INC., et al.,
16
17
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
18
19
I. BACKGROUND
Defendants C and C Concrete, Inc. and Jose Herrera (collectively, “Defendants”) are represented
20
by attorney Scott Woodall. On March 28, 2012, Mr. Woodall moved to withdraw as Defendants’
21
counsel because, in short, he believes that Defendants are no longer able to pay their agreed-upon
22
attorney’s fees. Motion to Withdraw, ECF No. 55 at 1-2.1 Mr. Woodall’s declaration, however,
23
neither adequately supports his claim that Defendants’ cannot pay their legal bills nor does it state
24
whether written notice of his intent to withdraw has been given to his clients, which is a requirement
25
for withdrawal under this District’s Civil Local Rules. See Woodall Declaration, ECF No. 55-1; see
26
27
1
28
Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page
number at the top of the document, not the pages at the bottom.
C 11-03344 LB
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW
1
also N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 11-5(a). Accordingly, as explained below, Mr. Woodall’s motion to
2
withdraw is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.2
3
II. LEGAL STANDARD
4
Under Civil Local Rule 11-5(a), “[c]ounsel may not withdraw from an action until relieved by
5
order of Court after written notice has been given reasonably in advance to the client and to all other
6
parties who have appeared in the case.” The local rules further provide that if the client does not
7
consent to the withdrawal and no substitution of counsel is filed, the motion to withdraw shall be
8
granted on the condition that all papers from the court and from the opposing party shall continue to
9
be served on that party’s current counsel for forwarding purposes until the client appears by other
10
Withdrawal is governed by the California Rules of Professional Conduct. See Nehad v.
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
counsel or pro se if the client is not a corporate defendant. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 11-5(b).
Mukasey, 535 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying California Rules of Professional Conduct to
13
attorney withdrawal); j2 Global Commc’ns, Inc. v. Blue Jay, Inc., No. C 08-4254 PHJ, 2009 WL
14
464768, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2009) (citation omitted). California Rule of Professional Conduct
15
3-700(C) sets forth several grounds under which an attorney may request permission to withdraw,
16
including if the client breaches an agreement or obligation to its counsel as to expenses or fees. Cal.
17
Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3-700(C)(1)(f); j2 Global Commc’ns, Inc., 2009 WL 464768 at *2
18
(holding withdrawal is proper where client failed to pay an unspecified amount of attorney’s fee and
19
client refused to communicate with its attorney despite attorney’s multiple attempts to contact him).
20
An attorney may also request withdrawal on the basis of “other conduct [that] renders it
21
unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively,” such as a client’s
22
failure to communicate with its attorney. Cal. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3-700(C)(1)(d); j2 Global
23
Commc’ns, Inc., 2009 WL 464768 at *2. The decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw is
24
discretionary with the court, and the court can use “its discretion to deny an attorney’s request to
25
withdraw where such withdrawal would work an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding.”
26
27
2
28
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court finds that this matter is suitable for
determination without oral argument and vacates the April 19, 2011 hearing.
C 11-03344 LB
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW
2
1
Gong v. City of Alameda, No. C 03-05495 TEH, 2008 WL 160964, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008)
2
(citing Mandel v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 3d 1, 4 (1977)) (holding there was no prejudice or
3
undue delay to client where counsel provided sufficient notice of its intent to withdraw and where no
4
trial date had yet been set in the case).
5
III. DISCUSSION
to pay their legal bills. Woodall Declaration, ECF No. 55-1 at 1-2. As stated above, the failure of a
8
client to pay his or her legal bills as required under a retainer agreement is a valid ground for
9
withdrawal. Cal. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3-700(C)(1)(f); j2 Global Commc’ns, Inc., 2009 WL
10
464768 at *2. But Mr. Woodall does not provide any evidence to support his claim. See generally
11
Woodall Declaration, ECF No. 55-1. He does not, for example, state that Defendants have failed to
12
For the Northern District of California
Mr. Woodall states in his declaration that he believes that Defendants no longer have the ability
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
pay any legal bills or that Defendants have told him that they cannot pay or do not intend to pay for
13
future legal services. Moreover, Mr. Woodall does not state that Defendants’ received written notice
14
of his intent to withdraw, which is required under this District’s Civil Local Rules. See id.; see also
15
N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 11-5(a). In short, his declaration is insufficient to support his withdrawal.
16
IV. CONCLUSION
17
Accordingly, this court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr. Woodall’s motion to withdraw.
18
Should Mr. Woodall wish to file a new motion to withdraw that is accompanied by a declaration that
19
addresses the above-described insufficiencies, he may do so.
20
This disposes of ECF No. 55.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
Dated: April 10, 2012
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
C 11-03344 LB
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?