Hobbs et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 130

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND ORDERING PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 10/9/2014 01:30 PM. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/4/14. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

8

12
13
14
15
16

TRACY HOBBS AND RODNEY HOBBS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., et al.,

No. C 12-4060 RS
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AND ORDERING
PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendants.
____________________________________/

17
18

The Consumer Litigation Law Center (CLLC), counsel for plaintiffs Tracy and Rodney

19

Hobbs, moves to withdraw as counsel in this matter due to plaintiffs’ alleged failure to pay attorney

20

fees. No opposition to this motion has been received. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the

21

motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument, and the hearing set for August 21, 2014 is

22

vacated. For the reasons explained below, the motion is granted. Additionally, plaintiffs are

23

ordered to show cause by October 9, 2014, why this case should not be dismissed.

24

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

25

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

26

other parties who have appeared in the case.” The local rules further provide that if the client does

27

not consent to the withdrawal and no substitution of counsel is filed, the motion to withdraw shall be

28

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

1

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

2

counsel or pro se. Civ. L.R. 11-5(b).
Withdrawal is governed by the California Rules of Professional Conduct. See Nehad v.

3
4

Mukasey, 535 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2008). Rule 3-700(c) of the California Rules of Professional

5

Conduct sets forth several grounds under which an attorney may request permission to withdraw,

6

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

7

R. 3-700(C)(1)(f). The court has discretion to deny a motion to withdraw “where such withdrawal

8

would work an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding.” Gong v. City of Alameda, No. 03-

9

05495 TEH, 2008 WL 160964, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008) (citing Mandel v. Superior Court, 67
Cal. App. 3d 1, 4 (1977)) (holding there was no prejudice or undue delay to client where counsel

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

provided sufficient notice of its intent to withdraw and where no trial date had yet been set in the

12

case).

13

As explained in a declaration submitted in support of CLLC’s motion, plaintiffs Tracy and

14

Rodney Hobbs have been delinquent on their attorney fees since January 2014. In addition,

15

counsel’s declaration represents that plaintiffs stopped cooperating with CLLC in the prosecution of

16

this matter. Beginning in March 2014, plaintiffs failed to return several phone calls from counsel

17

regarding pending court dates and negotiations with opposing counsel. In June 2014, plaintiffs

18

failed to respond to numerous voicemails, emails, and letters informing them that opposing counsel

19

had requested certain documents. CLLC notified plaintiffs of its intent to file this motion on June

20

20, 2014. The firm has heard nothing from plaintiffs since then.

21

Good cause appearing, the motion to withdraw is granted, subject to the condition that

22

CLLC shall continue to accept service of papers on behalf of Tracy and Rodney Hobbs for

23

forwarding purposes until they appear by other counsel or pro se. Counsel is further instructed to

24

notify plaintiffs of their obligation to prosecute this matter.

25

Plaintiffs Tracy and Rodney Hobbs are hereby ordered to show cause why this action should

26

not be dismissed. Based on counsel’s declaration, it appears plaintiffs may have abandoned their

27

intent to prosecute this lawsuit. If plaintiffs still wish to pursue this action, they must notify the

28

court of their intent to do so. Accordingly, plaintiffs shall appear in Courtroom 3 of 450

2

1

Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, on Thursday, October 9, at 1:30 p.m. and

2

show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. If plaintiffs fail to

3

appear, this case will be dismissed without further notice.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated: 8/4/14

7

RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3