Whitsitt v. County of San Mateo

Filing 76

ORDER Setting Briefing Schedule Re: Motion to Withdraw 74 and Setting Hearing for 8/9/2012 at 10:30 a.m. (lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
LAURA V. WHITSITT,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. C 10-04996 LB

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: BRIEFING SCHEDULE
FOR OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF
CURTIS E. ALLEN TO WITHDRAW AS
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

v.
13
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO,
14
15

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

16

I. BACKGROUND

17

On July 20, 2012, Plaintiff’s counsel, Curtis E. Allen filed a motion seeking court permission to

18

withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Laura V. Whitsitt. Mot. ECF No. 74. Mr. Allen states that he can

19

no longer represent Ms. Whitsitt based on “a total breakdown in our relationship and what I believe

20

are irreconcilable differences.” Allen Decl., ECF No. 74 at 3.1 Ms. Whitsitt does not consent to Mr.

21

Allen’s withdrawal. Id. The motion is noticed for a September 6, 2012 hearing, which is only two

22

weeks before the parties’ pretrial filings are due. Id. at 1, 3.
II. LEGAL STANDARD

23
24

Under this District’s Civil Local Rule 11-5(a), “[c]ounsel may not withdraw from an action until

25

relieved by order of Court after written notice has been given reasonably in advance to the client and

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 page numbers at the bottom.
C 10-04996 LB
ORDER

1
2
3
4
5

to all other parties who have appeared in the case.” Civil Local Rule 11-5(b) further provides:
When withdrawal by an attorney from an action is not accompanied by simultaneous
appearance of substitute counsel or agreement of the party to appear pro se, leave to
withdraw may be subject to the condition that papers may continue to be served on
counsel for forwarding purposes (or on the Clerk, if the Court so directs), unless and
until the client appears by other counsel or pro se. When this condition is imposed,
counsel must notify the party of this condition. Any filed consent by the party to
counsel’s withdrawal under these circumstances must include acknowledgment of
this condition.

6
7

“In ruling on a motion to withdraw, some courts have looked to the following factors: 1) the

8

reasons why withdrawal is sought; 2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; 3) the

9

harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and 4) the degree to which withdrawal

1:02-cv-06599 OWW DLB, 2009 WL 89141, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009) (citing Irwin v.

12
For the Northern District of California

will delay the resolution of the case.” Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. Edwin Moldauer, No.

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

Mascott, No. 97-4737, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28264, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2004); Beard v.

13

Shuttermart of California, Inc., No. 07CV594WQH (NLS), 2008 WL 410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal.

14

Feb.13, 2008); Rusinow v. Kamara, 920 F. Supp. 69, 71 (D.N.J. 1996)). As for the reasons why

15

withdrawal is sought, California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(c)(1) provides that an attorney

16

may permissively seek to withdraw if his or her client:

17
18

(a) insists upon presenting a claim or defense that is not warranted under existing law
and cannot be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or
reversal of existing law, or

19

(b) seeks to pursue an illegal course of conduct, or

20

(c) insists that the member pursue a course of conduct that is illegal or that is
prohibited under these rules or the State Bar Act, or

21
22

(d) by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the
employment effectively, or

24

(e) insists, in a matter not pending before a tribunal, that the member engage in
conduct that is contrary to the judgment and advice of the member but not prohibited
under these rules or the State Bar Act, or

25

(f) breaches an agreement or obligation to the member as to expenses or fees.

23

26

Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(c)(1).
III. SCHEDULING

27
28

In order to ensure that Ms. Whitsitt is given an opportunity to oppose her attorney’s motion,
C 10-04996 LB
ORDER

2

1

while permitting the court to resolve the issue in advance of the encroaching deadlines, the court

2

ORDERS the following:

3

1. The court will set Mr. Allen’s motion for hearing on August 9, 2012 (already scheduled as a case

4

management conference) at 10:30 a.m.;

5

2. Ms. Whitsitt must attend the August 9, 2012 hearing in person;

6

3. Defendant may (but need not) file an opposition to Mr. Allen’s motion no later than August 1,

7

2012;

8

4. Mr. Allen may (but need not) file a reply to any opposition no later than August 3, 2012; and

9

5. Mr. Allen will provide his client with a copy of this Order, ECF No. 74, and any opposition.

Lashanda Scott, at [phone] to obtain a list of alternate hearing dates and times. The parties

12
For the Northern District of California

Any party that cannot attend the August 9, 2012 hearing may contact Judge Beeler’s Deputy Clerk,

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

shall then confer to ascertain the most convenient time to set the hearing and inform Ms. Scott of

13

their preferred date and time.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: July 25, 2012

16

_______________________________

17

LAUREL BEELER

18

United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C 10-04996 LB
ORDER

3