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)
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?