Riese v. County of Del Norte et al

Filing 94

ORDER GRANTING CLAYPOOL LAW FIRM'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL FOLLOWING MEDIATION by Judge William H. Orrick granting 86 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, subject to Mr. Claypool representing Mr. Riese in the upcoming medi ation, after which Mr. Claypool may withdraw from this matter.The parties shall pick a mediator no later than November 20, 2013, and shall notify the Court as soon as they have done so. The parties shall schedule a mediation as soon as practicable, to be completed no later than January 13, 2014. The further Case Management Conference set for December 3, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. is continued until January 14, 2014 at 2:00 pm. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

MICHAEL RIESE,

Case No. 12-cv-03723-WHO (WHO)

Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
11

COUNTY OF DEL NORTE, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12

ORDER GRANTING CLAYPOOL LAW
FIRM’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL FOLLOWING
MEDIATION
Re: Dkt. No. 86

13
14

Brian Claypool of The Claypool Law Firm has moved to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff

15

Michael Riese. Dkt. No. 86. Mr. Claypool asserts that “the attorney-client relationship between

16

me and Mr. Riese has completely broken down to the point where I am unable to fulfill my

17

responsibilities to zealously and ethically represent him in this action.” Dkt. No. 86 at 7 ¶ 2.

18

At the hearing on the motion to withdraw, Mr. Riese expressed that he would like Mr.

19

Claypool to represent him in upcoming mediation in an attempt to resolve this matter. Mr.

20

Claypool stated that he would be willing to do so, if he can withdraw after the mediation, should

21

the mediation prove unsuccessful in resolving this matter.

22

The Court’s Civil Local Rules authorize an attorney to withdraw as counsel of record only

23

if: (1) written notice has been given reasonably in advance to the client and all other parties in the

24

action; and (2) the attorney obtains leave of Court. Civ. L.R. 11–5(a). The withdrawing counsel

25

must have “taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the

26

client.” Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct 3-700(A)(2). Pursuant to California Rule of Professional

27

Conduct 3-700(C), an attorney may request permission to withdraw where “conduct renders it

28

unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively.” Cal. Code of

1

Prof’l Conduct R. 700(C)(1)(d). Factors which courts consider in ruling on a motion to withdraw

2

include: 1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; 2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other

3

litigants; 3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and 4) the degree to

4

which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case. See, e.g., Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v.

5

Edwin Moldauer, 2009 WL 89141 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009) (citing cases).

6

In light of Mr. Claypool's declaration and the statements at the hearing by Mr. Riese and
Mr. Claypool, it became clear that a breakdown in communication between Mr. Riese and Mr.

8

Claypool would render it unreasonably difficult for Mr. Claypool to carry out his duties effectively

9

through trial. Given that discovery does not close until March 3, 2014, and trial is not scheduled

10

to commence until July 14, 2014, there is sufficient time for Mr. Riese to find new counsel who

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

will be able to participate in discovery and the preparation of the case for trial, and no prejudice

12

will be felt by the other litigants.

13

The Court previously ordered that a mediation occur within 90 days of the Case

14

Management Conference on August 28, 2013. During the hearing on November 13, 2013, the

15

Court learned that Mr. Claypool had proposed a mediator to the defendants but that no agreement

16

had been reached, and the mediation is still not scheduled. Mr. Riese indicated that he wanted to

17

proceed with the mediation with Mr. Claypool as his lawyer. Mr. Claypool agreed to continue his

18

representation in that limited role. This is an unusual situation where, despite the breakdown in

19

communications, both the lawyer and client believe that they can work together effectively on this

20

limited engagement, the lawyer understands the case, and a further delay in the mediation until

21

new counsel is chosen and fully prepared would almost inevitably delay the trial. If an acceptable

22

resolution does not occur at mediation, Mr. Riese’s case will not be prejudiced in any way, and he

23

will have gained additional time to find new counsel. For all of those reasons, the Court ordered

24

that Mr. Claypool and The Claypool Law Firm may withdraw occur only after the upcoming

25

mediation. Until that time, Mr. Claypool remains counsel of record for Mr. Riese.

26
27
28

CONCLUSION
Mr. Claypool and The Claypool Law Firm’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, subject to
Mr. Claypool representing Mr. Riese in the upcoming mediation, after which Mr. Claypool may
2

1
2

withdraw from this matter.
The parties shall pick a mediator no later than November 20, 2013, and shall notify

3

the Court as soon as they have done so. The parties shall schedule a mediation as soon as

4

practicable, to be completed no later than January 13, 2014.

5
6

The further Case Management Conference set for December 3, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. is
continued until January 14, 2014 at 2:00 pm.

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 14, 2013
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3