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)

Download PDF
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

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?