Payton v. County of Alameda et al

Filing 41

ORDER granting 29 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney. James Cook shall continue to forward papers to Plaintiff pursuant to Civ. L.R. 11-5(b). Plaintiff shall appear, with or without new counsel, for a Case Management Conference on 04/25/2016 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Joint Case Management Statement due by 04/18/2016. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 03/21/16. (tehlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2016)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 NATASHA PAYTON, Plaintiff, 5 6 7 8 v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., Defendants. Case No. 15-cv-02528-TEH ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL; SCHEDULING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 9 10 This matter is before the Court on James Cook (on behalf of the Law Offices of United States District Court Northern District of California 11 John L. Burris)’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff. Docket No. 29. 12 Defendants did not file an opposition to the motion. The Court finds this matter suitable 13 for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and hereby 14 VACATES the hearing set for March 28, 2016. Having carefully reviewed the written 15 arguments of Mr. Cook, and good cause appearing, the motion is hereby GRANTED for 16 the reasons set forth below. 17 18 19 LEGAL STANDARD In this district, the California Rules of Professional Conduct govern motions to 20 withdraw as counsel. See Nehad v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2008). 21 California Rule of Professional Conduct (“Rule”) 3-700(C)(5) allows permissive 22 withdrawal when the client “knowingly and freely assents to termination of the 23 employment.” Rule 3-700(A)(2) provides that counsel “shall not withdraw from 24 employment until the member has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable 25 prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time 26 for employment of other counsel, complying with rule 3-700(D) [regarding return of 27 papers], and complying with applicable laws and rules.” An attorney’s duty to the client 28 1 upon withdrawal “is not altered by the circumstance of who terminates the relationship.” 2 Acad. of Cal. Optometrists, Inc. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. App. 3d 999, 1005-06 (1975). 3 The decision to permit counsel to withdraw is within the sound discretion of the 4 trial court. United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009). Courts consider 5 several factors when deciding a motion for withdrawal, including: “(1) the reasons counsel 6 seeks to withdraw; (2) the possible prejudice that withdrawal may cause to other litigants; 7 (3) the harm that withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the extent 8 to which withdrawal will delay resolution of the case.” Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, 9 No. 09-CV-01643-SBA, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010). 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 DISCUSSION 12 Mr. Cook has requested permissive withdrawal from his representation of Plaintiff 13 Natasha Payton pursuant to Local Rule 11-5(a) and Rule 3-700 of the California Rules of 14 Professional Conduct. Mr. Cook contends that irreconcilable differences existed regarding 15 settlement, and that Ms. Payton sought representation by other counsel and requested that 16 Mr. Cook’s office return her file. Mot. at 2. Mr. Cook attached a series of emails 17 demonstrating Ms. Payton’s desire to “move on from this bad experience” and “leave.” 18 Ex. A to Mot. In one of the emails dated January 11, 2016, Ms. Payton requested that her 19 file be “ready to go” for her to pick up. Id. On February 12, 2016, Mr. Cook stated that 20 his office had returned Ms. Payton’s file. Docket No. 37. 21 The Court has considered the applicability of Rule 3-700(C)(5) and has balanced 22 Mr. Cook’s reasons for seeking withdrawal against potential prejudice to the parties, harm 23 to the administration of justice, and delay. The Court finds that Mr. Cook has cited 24 legitimate reasons in support of his motion to withdraw, and that due to the early stage of 25 this litigation, there would be minimal prejudice to the parties, harm to the administration 26 of justice, or undue delay if the Court allows Mr. Cook to withdraw. There have been no 27 substantive motions filed in this case and only one Case Management Conference has 28 2 1 occurred. Therefore, Mr. Cook’s withdrawal would not disrupt the proceedings. For these 2 reasons, the Court GRANTS Mr. Cook’s motion to withdraw. 3 However, it is unclear to the Court from the submitted papers whether Ms. Payton 4 has obtained new counsel, and no substitution of counsel has been filed thus far. 5 Therefore, Mr. Cook shall continue to forward papers to Ms. Payton. See Civ. L. R. 11- 6 5(b) (“When withdrawal . . . is not accompanied by simultaneous appearance of substitute 7 counsel or agreement of the party to appear pro se, leave to withdraw may be subject to the 8 condition that papers may continue to be served on counsel for forwarding purposes . . . 9 unless and until the client appears by other counsel or pro se.”). 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 CONCLUSION The Law Offices of John L. Burris and all of its members are hereby permitted to 13 withdraw as counsel of record in the above-captioned action for Plaintiff Natasha Payton, 14 effective immediately upon issuance of this Order. The Law Offices of John L. Burris 15 shall continue to receive all papers served in this action and forward them to Ms. Payton 16 until substitute counsel is appointed or Ms. Payton appears pro se. 17 The Court hereby schedules a Case Management Conference on Monday, April 25, 18 2016 at 1:30 PM, in Courtroom 12 on the 19th Floor of the Phillip Burton Federal 19 Courthouse. Ms. Payton shall appear at the Case Management Conference with her new 20 counsel or be prepared to present to the Court specific information as to her attempts to 21 obtain new counsel. The parties shall file a joint case management statement no later than 22 April 18, 2016. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 27 Dated: 03/21/16 _____________________________________ THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?