Lohse et al v. Nationstar Mortgage et al

Filing 40

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero granting 33 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney; continuing 34 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Attorney G. Thomas Martin, III terminated. (jcslc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GARY LOHSE, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-00514-JCS

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE,
Defendant.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 33, 34

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFFS; CONTINUING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

12
13

On May 15, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement in the underlying action and five

14

days later, Defendant withdrew its then-pending motion to dismiss. See Dkt. Nos. 29, 31. On June

15

5, 2014, Plaintiffs withdrew their notice of settlement, and Plaintiffs’ counsel (“Counsel”) filed a

16

motion to withdraw as counsel on the grounds that there has been an irreparable breakdown of the

17

attorney-client relationships that renders the attorney’s duties as unreasonably difficult. See Dkt.

18

No. 33 (“Motion”). On June 17, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a letter with the Court stating that Counsel

19

“dismissed himself of [the] case . . . when in all good conscious [sic] we decided we could not be

20

forced against our wills to agree and sign the Agreement presented by the attorneys of

21

[Defendant].” See Dkt. No. 36.

22

“In the Northern District of California, the conduct of counsel is governed by the standards

23

of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of California, including the Rules of

24

Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California.” Fleury v. Richemont N. Am., Inc., C-05-4525

25

EMC, 2007 WL 2457596, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2007) (quoting Hill Design Group v. Wang,

26

No. C 04-521 JF (RS), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93449, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2006)). Under

27

California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700, counsel may withdraw from representation if,

28

inter alia, the client’s “conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the [attorney] to carry out the

1
2

employment effectively.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d).
Here, the Court finds that the breakdown of relations between Counsel and Plaintiffs is

3

irreparable such that counsel can no longer represent Plaintiffs effectively. Plaintiffs’ letter to the

4

Court indicates that they no longer wish to be represented by their current Counsel, and they

5

intend to continue pursuing this case with new counsel or pro se. Accordingly, Counsel’s Motion

6

is GRANTED.
In order to give Plaintiffs time to retain new counsel or to prepare for proceeding pro se, all

8

briefing deadlines pertaining to Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss shall be CONTINUED for

9

sixty days. See Dkt. No. 34. Further, the hearing on Defendant’s motion to dismiss currently set

10

for July 25, 2014 shall be continued to September 26, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom G, 15th

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

Floor, San Francisco.

12

Effective immediately, Plaintiffs shall proceed as pro se unless they find counsel to

13

represent them and counsel makes an appearance with this Court. All papers and pleadings shall

14

be served on Plaintiffs at the following address unless they notify the Court that a different address

15

should be used: 7394 North Meridian Road, Vacaville, CA 95688.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 23, 2014
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2