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

Filing 36

ORDER by Judge James Donato permitting conditional withdrawal of counsel re 32 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. The Court terminates 33 Motion to Shorten Time. (jdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2016)

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 ORDER PERMITTING CONDITIONAL WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL v. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 32 Defendants. 12 13 Case No. 16-cv-00810-JD 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. See Dkt. No. 15. The Court denied Counsel’s first motion to withdraw 16 based on their failure to demonstrate compliance with applicable California rules and the Court’s 17 Local Rules. Dkt. Nos. 25, 28. Counsel filed a revised motion to withdraw on June 7, 2016. Dkt. 18 No. 32. Tolbert filed two statements of opposition to the first motion for withdrawal, but these 19 were not received by the Court or entered in the docket until after the first motion was denied. 20 Dkt. Nos. 29, 30. She did not file any response to Counsel’s second motion to withdraw by the 21 response deadline of June 21, 2016. Defendants’ view is irrelevant for obvious reasons but in any 22 event they raise no issue about the withdrawal. Dkt. No. 35. The Court finds the motion suitable 23 for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and conditionally grants 24 permission for Counsel to withdraw. 25 In response to the Court’s concerns, the revised motion now adequately describes the 26 notice of withdrawal given to Tolbert under Civil Local Rule 11-5(a) and California Rule of 27 Professional Conduct 3-700. Dkt. Nos. 32-1 and 32-2. Counsel also stated good cause for seeking 28 to withdraw. 1 While the Court is sympathetic to Tolbert’s concerns about returning to pro se status, none 2 of her objections warrant denial of withdrawal. Tolbert’s objection that she did not get adequate 3 notice of the withdrawal is not well taken in light of the uncontested facts represented by Counsel. 4 The Court finds no “misrepresent[ation]” or “innuendo” in Counsel’s statements that will 5 undermine Tolbert or her case in the Court’s eyes. See Dkt. No. 29 ¶¶ 3, 5. The Court finds no 6 prejudice. Counsel sought and obtained extensions for Tolbert on all currently pending case 7 deadlines while moving to withdraw. Dkt. No. 28. The amended complaint in this matter is not 8 due until July 13, 2016. And Tolbert may petition the Court for one further extension of time if 9 necessary. 10 Consequently, the Court grants Counsel’s motion to withdraw subject to the conditions of United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Civil Local Rule 11-5(b). Counsel will notify plaintiff of their continuing obligations under the 12 rule and will help plaintiff with filing court and ECF documents, if she requests that help, until 13 replacement counsel appear or Tolbert agrees to proceed pro se. The Court directs Tolbert to 14 notify the Court by July 13, 2016 whether she has retained replacement counsel or intends to 15 proceed pro se. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 27, 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?