Beal et al v. Royal Oak Bar et al

Filing 36

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 4/28/2014. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
MICHAEL BEAL, et al.,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14

ROYAL OAK BAR, et al.,

15

No. C 13-04911 LB
ORDER REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL’S
MOTION TO WITHDRAW
[Re: ECF No. 25]

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

16
Defendants Royal Oak Bar and Ares Papageorge (collectively, “Defendants”) are represented by
17
attorney Russell Robinson. On April 7, 2014, Mr. Robinson moved to withdraw as Defendants’
18
counsel because his relationship with his clients is “in shambles.” Motion to Withdraw, ECF No. 25
19

at 2.1 He says that Katherine Papageorge, the owner of the Royal Oak Bar, “is trying,” through him,

20
“to practice law without a license.” Id. And he says that he “has expressly been instructed not to
21
perform any further work on behalf of” Mr. Papageorge. Id. at 3.
22
Under Civil Local Rule 11-5(a), “[c]ounsel may not withdraw from an action until relieved by
23
order of Court after written notice has been given reasonably in advance to the client and to all other
24
parties who have appeared in the case.” The local rules further provide that if the client does not
25
consent to the withdrawal and no substitution of counsel is filed, the motion to withdraw shall be
26
27
1

28

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 13-04911 LB
ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO WITHDRAW

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

See Cal. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3-700(C).

can use “its discretion to deny an attorney’s request to withdraw where such withdrawal would work

12
For the Northern District of California

The decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw is discretionary with the court, and the court

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding.” Gong v. City of Alameda, No. C 03-05495

13

TEH, 2008 WL 160964, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008) (citing Mandel v. Superior Court, 67 Cal.

14

App. 3d 1, 4 (1977)) (holding there was no prejudice or undue delay to client where counsel

15

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

16

case).

17

The court issues this order to appraise counsel and the parties of the legal standard (described

18

above) and to reiterate that the motion will be heard at 9:30 a.m. on May 15, 2014 (even though

19

Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to Defendants’ counsel’s motion). The court ORDERS Mr.

20

Robinson, Mr. Papageorge, and Ms. Papageorge to appear at the hearing in person. Mr. Robinson

21

SHALL serve this order on Mr. Papageorge and Ms. Papageorge and advise them of the need to

22

appear at the May 15, 2014 hearing in person. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, may appear at the

23

hearing by telephone through CourtCall, if they so desire.

24

The court also wishes to notify the parties that they should be prepared to discuss their

25

mandatory appearances at the May 27, 2014 settlement conference before Judge Cousins.

26
27
28
C 13-04911 LB
ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO WITHDRAW

2

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 28, 2014
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C 13-04911 LB
ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO WITHDRAW

3