Estate of Robert Renzel, Deceased et al v. Ventura et al

Filing 160

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 152 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ROBERT E. RENZEL TRUST, et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-01648-HSG

Plaintiffs,
8

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW

v.
9
10

ALFREDO TORRES, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 152

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
Thu Nguyen (“Client Nguyen”) and Ngoc T.B. Tran (“Client Tran”) are defendants,

12
13

counterclaimants, cross-complainants, and cross-defendants in this action. Dkt. No. 152. They

14

have been represented by attorneys Ann A. Nguyen (“Attorney Nguyen”) and Joshua J. Borgor

15

(“Attorney Borgor”) of the law firm Robinson & Wood, Inc. (“Firm”). Id. On December 6, 2016,

16

Attorney Borgor gave written notice to all parties, including Clients Nguyen and Tran, of the

17

Firm’s intention to withdraw as counsel. Id. at 3. On December 7, 2016, the Firm filed the

18

motion to withdraw, including Attorney Borgor’s declaration. Id. Attorney Borgor subsequently

19

ceased working for the Firm. See Dkt. No. 158 at 1. On February 16, 2017, the Court held a

20

hearing on the motion. Clients Nguyen and Tran failed to appear as ordered by the Court, see Dkt.

21

Nos. 153, 159, but Attorney Nguyen appeared by phone. Attorney Nguyen has represented to the

22

Court both in writing, see Dkt. No. 158, and during the hearing, that Clients Nguyen and Tran do

23

not oppose the motion to withdraw. Based upon the applicable legal authority, Attorney Borgor’s

24

declaration, and Attorney Nguyen’s statements during the hearing, the Court GRANTS the

25

motion to withdraw.

26
27
28

I.

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

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

1

other parties who have appeared in the case.” Withdrawal is governed by the California Rules of

2

Professional Conduct. See j2 Glob. Commc’ns, Inc. v. Blue Jay, Inc., No. C 08-4254PJH, 2009

3

WL 464768, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2009)). Under these rules, an attorney may only request

4

permission to withdraw on a limited number of grounds, of which two are relevant here. See CA

5

ST RPC Rule 3-700(C). First, a request for withdrawal is permitted where “[t]he client knowingly

6

and freely assents to termination of employment.” Id., Rule 3-700(C)(5). In addition, a request

7

for withdrawal is permitted where the attorney “believes in good faith . . . that the tribunal will

8

find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal.” Id., Rule 3-700(C)(6). The decision to

9

grant or deny a motion to withdraw is within the Court’s discretion. Gong v. City of Alameda, No.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

C 03–05495 TEH, 2008 WL 160964, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008).
II.

DISCUSSION
Local Civil Rule 11-5(a) was satisfied because all parties, including Clients Nguyen and

12
13

Tran, received reasonable advance notice of the Firm’s intention to withdraw. See Dkt. No. 152.

14

The filing of the motion was also permitted by the California Rules of Professional Conduct.

15

Attorney Nguyen’s statements in writing, see Dkt. No. 157, and during the hearing, establish that

16

Clients Nguyen and Tran have “knowingly and freely assent[ed]” to the termination of

17

employment. See CA RPC Rule 3-700(C)(5). Moreover, Attorney Nguyen’s representations

18

during the proceeding demonstrated that the motion was filed with a good faith belief in the

19

existence of good cause for withdrawal. See id., Rule 3-700(C)(6). Accordingly, the Court finds

20

in its discretion that the Firm’s withdrawal is warranted. See Gong, 2008 WL 160964, at *1.

21

III.

22

CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion to withdraw. The Court ORDERS Attorney Nguyen to

23

comply with all legal and professional obligations relating to the termination of the Firm’s

24

employment, including California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(D).

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/17/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
2