Jara v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC et al

Filing 89

ORDER GRANTING 76 Plaintiff's Counsels' Motion to Withdraw. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 03/30/2012. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/30/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
JOSE A. JARA,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. C 11-00419 LB
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
COUNSELS’ MOTION TO
WITHDRAW

v.
13
AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
14
15

[Re: ECF No. 76]
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

16
17

I. BACKGROUND
Presently, plaintiff Jose Jara is represented by two attorneys: Glenn Moss and Patricia Turnage.

18

On March 7, 2012, they moved to withdraw as Mr. Jara’s counsel because, in short, Mr. Jara is no

19

longer cooperating with them and has not fully paid his legal bills in recent months. Motion to

20

Withdraw, ECF No. 76; Turnage Declaration, ECF No. 76-1 at 1-2, ¶¶ 3, 7-9; Moss Declaration,

21

ECF No. 76-1 at 4-5, ¶¶ 2, 5-6.1 They served the motion and supporting papers on Mr. Jara and

22

Defendants on March 7, 2012. Proof of Service, ECF No. 76 at 4. No one has opposed their

23

motion.

24

II. LEGAL STANDARD

25

Under Civil Local Rule 11-5(a), “[c]ounsel may not withdraw from an action until relieved by

26

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

27
28

1

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 11-00419 LB

1

parties who have appeared in the case.” The local rules further provide that if the client does not

2

consent to the withdrawal and no substitution of counsel is filed, the motion to withdraw shall be

3

granted on the condition that all papers from the court and from the opposing party shall continue to

4

be served on that party’s current counsel for forwarding purposes until the client appears by other

5

counsel or pro se if the client is not a corporate defendant. Civil L.R. 11-5(b).

6

Withdrawal is governed by the California Rules of Professional Conduct. See Nehad v.

7

Mukasey, 535 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying California Rules of Professional Conduct to

8

attorney withdrawal); j2 Global Commc’ns, Inc. v. Blue Jay, Inc., No. C 08-4254 PHJ, 2009 WL

9

464768, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2009) (citation omitted). California Rule of Professional Conduct

including if the client breaches an agreement or obligation to its counsel as to expenses or fees. Cal.

12
For the Northern District of California

3-700(C) sets forth several grounds under which an attorney may request permission to withdraw,

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3-700(C)(1)(f); j2 Global Commc’ns, Inc., 2009 WL 464768 at *2

13

(holding withdrawal is proper where client failed to pay an unspecified amount of attorney’s fee and

14

client refused to communicate with its attorney despite attorney’s multiple attempts to contact him).

15

An attorney may also request withdrawal on the basis of “other conduct [that] renders it

16

unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively,” such as a client’s

17

failure to communicate with its attorney. Cal. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3-700(C)(1)(d); j2 Global

18

Commc’ns, Inc., 2009 WL 464768 at *2. The decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw is

19

discretionary with the court, and the court can use “its discretion to deny an attorney’s request to

20

withdraw where such withdrawal would work an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding.”

21

Gong v. City of Alameda, No. C 03-05495 TEH, 2008 WL 160964, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008)

22

(citing Mandel v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 3d 1, 4 (1977)) (holding there was no prejudice or

23

undue delay to client where counsel provided sufficient notice of its intent to withdraw and where no

24

trial date had yet been set in the case).

25

III. DISCUSSION

26

Mr. Moss and Ms. Turnage say nothing about Mr. Jara consenting to their withdrawal, so they

27

argue that good cause exists to grant their motion. The courts finds that good cause exists. As stated

28

above, the failure of a client to pay his or her legal bills as required under a retainer agreement is a

C 11-00419 LB

2

1

valid ground for withdrawal. Cal. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3-700(C)(1)(f); j2 Global Commc’ns,

2

Inc., 2009 WL 464768 at *2. Moreover, Mr. Jara received notice of his counsels’ intent to

3

withdraw, and neither he nor Defendants have stated that Mr. Moss’s and Ms. Turnage’s withdrawal

4

will cause them undue hardship or prejudice. The court notes, too, that this action has been

5

dismissed with prejudice, so their withdrawal will not unduly delay the proceedings. See

6

03/30/2012 Order, ECF No. 87; Judgment, ECF No. 88.

7
8
9

IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this court GRANTS Mr. Moss and Ms. Turnage’s motion to withdraw.2 However,
because Mr. Jara has not consented to the withdrawal and no substitution of counsel has been filed

Defendants shall continue to be served on Mr. Moss and Ms. Turnage for forwarding purposes until

12
For the Northern District of California

on his behalf, the motion is granted on the condition that all papers from the court and from

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

a substitution of counsel is filed as provided by Civil Local Rule 11-5(b).

13

This disposes of ECF No. 76.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: March 30, 2012
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

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 11-00419 LB

3