Keung TSE v. eBay, Inc. et al

Filing 139

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW ATTORNEY by Judge Alsup finding as moot 135 Motion to Withdraw ; denying 138 Motion to Withdraw (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
HO KEUNG TSE,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16

No. C 11-01812 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
WITHDRAW ATTORNEY

EBAY, INC.,
Defendant.
/

At the case management conference on July 28, 2011, attorney Deborah Barron made an

17

appearance for plaintiff, who previously had been proceeding pro se. Attorney Barron was

18

advised that she was “in the case for good now” and that “[o]nce you’re in . . . it’s very hard to

19

get out.” She responded, “I’m in for life, unless I die” (Dkt. No. 129 at 6).

20

On August 16 — less than three weeks later — plaintiff filed a “pro se” motion for

21

withdrawal of Attorney Barron. Plaintiff states that “recently I found Ms. Deborah Barron was

22

not performing her attorney duty properly and has to dismissed her” [sic]. Plaintiff recounts that

23

Attorney Barron’s assistant deleted quotations marks around certain sentences in a draft

24

opposition brief plaintiff provided, and then filed a version of the brief with the quotation marks

25

reinserted only at his insistence. Plaintiff complains that Attorney Barron “attempted to delete all

26

Plaintiff’s quotes” for no reason, and that she failed to defend the quotations against objections by

27

opposition counsel, advising him instead to withdraw the brief, file a corrected brief, or inform

28

the Court that the brief contained fabricated statements (Dkt. No. 138).

1

A motion to withdraw as counsel of record must be filed by the attorney seeking leave to

2

withdraw, not by his or her client. As plaintiff was advised in the order denying his improper

3

“pro se” motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, when a party is represented by an

4

attorney, only the attorney may speak and make filings for the party. Plaintiff may not make any

5

more “pro se” filings while he is represented by counsel. Any such filings made in the future will

6

be stricken (see Dkt. No. 137).

7

Because plaintiff’s “pro se” motion for withdrawal of his attorney was procedurally

proper motion for leave to withdraw in conformity with the local rules if she believes such a

10

motion is warranted. This order, however, does not comment on whether the circumstances

11
For the Northern District of California

improper, the motion is DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to Attorney Barron filing a

9

United States District Court

8

described in plaintiff’s motion constitute good cause for withdrawal.

12

If plaintiff is dissatisfied with Attorney Barron, he should discuss her work with her. If

13

plaintiff concludes that he no longer wishes to be represented by Attorney Barron, then he should

14

formally discharge her services and request that she file a motion for leave to withdraw as counsel

15

of record. Plaintiff is advised, however, that if he opts to proceed without a lawyer, he will be

16

required to appear personally at every hearing in this action. Because plaintiff chose to sue in the

17

United States, the inconvenience of litigating this action from his home in Hong Kong will not be

18

an excuse for failure to attend hearings. Plaintiff also will not be allowed to appear by telephone

19

at any hearing in this action (see Dkt. No. 115).

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: August 17, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2