Tolbert v. City & County of San Francisco Department of Public Health et al

Filing 28

ORDER by Judge James Donato denying 25 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney; granting 26 Stipulation re extension of deadlines. The amended complaint will be filed by July 13, 2016. The case management conference is continued to July 20, 2016. (jdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KIM E. TOLBERT,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Case No. 16-cv-00810-JD
ORDER RE MOTION TO WITHDRAW
AND CONTINUANCE OF DEADLINES

v.
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et
al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 25, 26

Defendants.
Plaintiff Kim Tolbert filed this employment discrimination lawsuit as a pro se litigant on

14

February 18, 2016. Dkt. No. 1. Attorneys from The Scott Law firm (“Counsel”) appeared on her

15

behalf shortly thereafter, but now seek to withdraw under Civil Local Rule 11-5(a). See Dkt. Nos.

16

15, 25. Defendant City and County of San Francisco (Department of Public Health) does not

17

oppose. Dkt. No. 27. The Court finds this matter suitable for decision without oral argument

18

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

19

The Court denies the motion to withdraw because Counsel have failed to comply with

20

applicable California rules and the Court’s Local Rules. Counsel represent that the attorney-client

21

relationship with Ms. Tolbert has irrevocably broken down and pledge that they will seek no fees

22

whatsoever for their work in this matter. Dkt. No. 25-1. But neither the motion nor the

23

accompanying declaration from attorney John Scott actually states that Counsel complied with

24

Civil Local Rule 11-5(a) and provided “written notice . . . given reasonably in advance to the

25

client.” Counsel also notably fail to allege any compliance with the provisions of California Rule

26

of Professional Conduct 3-700. Nor do they explain why they should not be subject to the

27

conditional withdrawal provisions of Civil Local Rule 11-5(b), given that their papers are “not

28

1

accompanied by simultaneous appearance of substitute counsel or agreement of the party to appear

2

pro se.”

3

If Counsel files a revised motion to withdraw, the Court will require a sworn declaration

4

from the lead attorney establishing that plaintiff was notified under Civil Local Rule 11-5(a) and

5

(b) and that Counsel complied with all the provisions of California Rule of Professional Conduct

6

3-700. The declaration should describe at a high level and without violating attorney-client

7

confidentiality the efforts undertaken to obtain Ms. Tolbert’s consent to the withdrawal, and

8

certify that those efforts were unsuccessful. If Counsel believe they have compelling reasons for

9

being excused from the conditional withdrawal requirements of Civil Local Rule 11-5(b), those
should also be described in the declaration to the degree consistent with Counsel’s ongoing duties

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

to Ms. Tolbert.

12

At the parties’ request, and in light of this order, the Court grants the joint stipulation to

13

continue case management deadlines. Dkt. No. 26. The amended complaint will be filed July 13,

14

2016. The case management conference is moved to July 20, 2016. The Federal Rule of Civil

15

Procedure 26 disclosures and case management statement are due a week before the conference.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 3, 2016

18
19
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2