Novus Optimum Labs et al v. Tamayo et al

Filing 52

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO WITHDRAW re 46 Notice of Substitution of Counsel filed by Edgardo Tamayo, Gina Tamayo. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on August 26, 2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
NOVUS OPTIMUM LABS, et al.,

7

Case No. 13-cv-01119-JST

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO
WITHDRAW

9
GINA TAMAYO, et al.,

10

Re: ECF No. 46

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
Before the Court is the request to withdraw as counsel1 filed by counsel for Defendants

12
13

Gina and Edgardo Tamayo on August 12, 2013. ECF No. 46. Defendants “wish to remove their

14

counsel of record” and proceed pro se; their signatures appear on the request alongside their

15

counsel’s. ECF No. 46 p. 2.

16

Civil Local Rule 11-5(a) permits the withdrawal of counsel only with leave of court “after

17

written notice has been given reasonably in advance to the client and to all other parties who have

18

appeared in the case.” California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(5) permits the

19

withdrawal of counsel where, as here, “[t]he client knowingly and freely assents to termination of

20

the employment.” Nevertheless, Plaintiffs Novus Optimum Labs, dba Novus Optimum Labs, Inc.,

21

and Meliza Reyes oppose the request on three grounds: (1) at the time the request was filed,

22

Defendants had not filed a certificate of compliance with this Court’s preliminary injunction

23

(though now they have, see ECF No. 49 (filed August 20, 2013)); (2) Defendants have not

24

amended their initial disclosures to Plaintiffs’ satisfaction; and (3) withdrawal will delay

25

production of documents and responses to written discovery. None of those reasons are

26

persuasive.

27
1

28

Defendants styled the request as a “Request for Approval of Substitution of Counsel,” but
Defendants request to represent themselves pro se. Because they do not request to substitute any
counsel for their current one, Defendants’ request is actually a request to withdraw.

The first objection is moot. As to second and third objections, not only is there is no

1
2

authority for them, but the law is to the contrary. Oracle Am., Inc. v. Serv. Key, LLC, 12-cv-

3

00790-SBA, 2013 WL 1195620 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2013) (overruling plaintiff’s objection to

4

withdrawal of counsel that withdrawal would disrupt discovery because parties have “absolute

5

right” to discharge counsel) (citing Francasse v. Brent, 6 Cal. 3d 784, 790 (Cal. 1972); Cal. Code

6

Civ. P. § 284).2

7

Moreover, while the parties may have discovery disputes, no party has moved for relief

8

from the Court, and the case is still in its early stages. Discovery will be open until May 2014.

9

The Court cannot conclude that any party will suffer unreasonable delay if Defendants’ counsel

10

withdraws.
For the foregoing reasons, defense counsel’s request to withdraw as counsel is hereby

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: August 26, 2013
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

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

2

Plaintiffs argue that that “[w]ithdrawal should be denied where it will cause delay,” citing Darby
v. City of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992). In Darby, the motion to withdraw
was denied principally because counsel sought to withdraw over the objection of his own client.
Those are not the facts here.
2