Forreststream Holdings Limited v. Shenkman

Filing 395

ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler granting 364 Motion to Withdraw ; granting 366 Motion to Withdraw. As set forth in the attached order, the court grants Walter C. Cook's motion to withdraw as attorney for Gregory Shenkman. (Until Mr. Shenk man enters an appearance, Mr. Cook must accept service of all papers from Forreststream and the court and must forward them to Mr. Shenkman.) (Attachments: # 1 Pro Se Handbook, # 2 Legal Help Center Flyer) (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

FORRESTSTREAM HOLDINGS
LIMITED,

12

Case No. 16-cv-01609-LB

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING WALTER C.
COOK’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW
AS ATTORNEY FOR GREGORY
SHENKMAN

13
v.
14
GREGORY SHENKMAN,

15

Re: ECF No. 364–366

Defendant.
16
17

INTRODUCTION

18

Walter C. Cook, counsel for the defendant Gregory Shenkman, moves to withdraw as Mr.

19

Shenkman’s attorney because — among other reasons — Mr. Shenkman has made it unreasonably

20

difficult for him to carry out his role effectively and is not paying him.1 Plaintiff Forreststream

21

Holdings Ltd. does not oppose withdrawal, provided that withdrawal does not complicate

22

Forreststream’s being able to serve Mr. Shenkman with documents and filings. Mr. Cook served

23

his motion to withdraw on Mr. Shenkman.2
The court held two hearings — on February 7, 2019, and on March 7, 2019 — at which Mr.

24
25

Cook, Mr. Shenkman, and Forreststream were all present. As discussed at the hearings, the court

26
27
28

Cook Decl. – ECF No. 365 at 2–3 (¶¶ 5–13). Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File
(“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.
1

2

Cook Mot. to Withdraw Proof of Service – ECF No. 365 at 27.

ORDER – No. 16-cv-01609-LB

1

grants the motion to withdraw for the reasons advanced by Mr. Cook and finds that he has taken

2

adequate steps to avoid foreseeable harm caused by his withdrawal.

3
ANALYSIS

4
5
6

1. Governing Law
Under Civil Local Rule 11-5(a), “[c]ounsel may not withdraw from an action until relieved by
order of Court after written notice has been given reasonably in advance to the client and to all

8

other parties who have appeared in the case.” The Local Rules further provide that if the client

9

does not consent to the withdrawal and no substitution of counsel is filed, the motion to withdraw

10

will be granted on the condition that all papers from the court and from the opposing party will be

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

served on the current (and withdrawing) counsel to forward to the client until the client appears

12

through new counsel or pro se (if the client is not a corporate defendant). N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R.

13

11-5(b).

14

Withdrawal is governed by the California Rules of Professional Conduct. See Nehad v.

15

Mukasey, 535 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying California Rules of Professional Conduct to

16

attorney withdrawal); j2 Global Commc’ns, Inc. v. Blue Jay, Inc., No. C 08-4254 PJH, 2009 WL

17

464768, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2009) (citing Elan Transdermal Ltd. v. Cygnus Therapeutic Sys.,

18

809 F. Supp. 1383, 1387 (N.D. Cal. 1992)). California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C) sets

19

forth several grounds under which an attorney may request permission to withdraw, including the

20

following: (1) a client (a) insists on presenting a claim or defense not warranted under the law or a

21

good-faith extension of it, (b) seeks to pursue an illegal course of conduct, (c) insists that the

22

attorney pursue an illegal course of conduct or conduct barred by the ethics rules, (d) makes it

23

unreasonably difficult for the attorney to carry out his employment effectively, (e) insists (in a

24

matter not pending before a tribunal) that the attorney act contrary to the attorney’s judgment or

25

advice, or (f) breaches an agreement or obligation as to fees; (2) the attorney’s continued

26

employment is likely to breach the ethics rules; (3) the inability to work with co-counsel indicates

27

that the best interests of the client likely will be served by withdrawal; (4) the member’s mental or

28

physical condition renders it difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively;
ORDER – No. 16-cv-01609-LB

2

1

(5) the client knowingly and freely assents to termination of the employment; or (6) the attorney

2

believes in good faith (in proceeding pending before a tribunal) that the tribunal will find other

3

good cause for the withdrawal.

4

Before counsel can withdraw, counsel must comply with California Rule of Professional

5

Conduct 3-700(A)(2), which provides that counsel must not withdraw from employment until the

6

member has taken steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client,

7

including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel,

8

complying with Rule 3-700(D) (regarding papers), and complying with applicable laws and rules.

9

El Hage v. U.S. Sec. Assocs., Inc., No. C06-7828 TEH, 2007 WL 4328809, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec.

10

10, 2007).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The decision to permit counsel to withdraw is within the sound discretion of the trial court.

12

United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir.2009). Courts consider several factors when

13

considering a motion for withdrawal, including (1) the reasons counsel seeks to withdraw, (2) the

14

possible prejudice that withdrawal may cause to other litigants, (3) the harm that withdrawal might

15

cause to the administration of justice, and (4) the extent to which withdrawal will delay resolution

16

of the case. Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. C 09-01643 SBA, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2

17

(N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010).

18
19

2. Application
The court grants the motion to withdraw because Mr. Shenkman (1) has made it unreasonably

20
21

difficult for Mr. Cook to carry out his employment effectively — as reflected in Mr. Cook’s

22

declaration3 and in the court’s earlier order sanctioning Mr. Shenkman, Forreststream Holdings

23

Ltd. v. Shenkman, No. 16-cv-01609-LB, 2018 WL 6522218 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2018)4 — and

24

(2) has breached his obligation to pay Mr. Cook, both of which are grounds for withdrawal under

25
26
3

Cook Decl. – ECF No. 365.

4

27

Order – ECF No. 345.

28
ORDER – No. 16-cv-01609-LB

3

1

California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C). Mr. Cook has taken available steps to avoid

2

prejudice to Mr. Shenkman by giving him notice.5

3
CONCLUSION

4
5

The court grants Mr. Cook’s motion to withdraw as attorney for Mr. Shenkman.

6

Because Mr. Shenkman will now be proceeding pro se, at the March 7, 2019 hearing the court

7

provided him with a copy of the district court’s handbook Representing Yourself in Federal Court:

8

A Handbook for Pro Se Litigants and a flyer for the Legal Help Center, a free service of the

9

Volunteer Legal Services Program. The court attaches another copy of the handbook and flyer

10

here.
Mr. Shenkman is ordered to (1) file an appearance in this case that states his current address

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

and (2) keep his address current and up-to-date with the court on an ongoing basis. The court will

13

not excuse any failure by Mr. Shenkman to keep his address current and up-to-date and will deem

14

Mr. Shenkman to have constructive knowledge of any documents or filings properly served upon

15

him at the address he has on file with the court. (Until Mr. Shenkman enters an appearance, Mr.

16

Cook must accept service of all papers from Forreststream and the court and must forward them to

17

Mr. Shenkman.)
Nothing in this order relieves Mr. Shenkman of any obligation imposed on him by any prior

18
19

court order.
Mr. Cook is ordered to serve a copy of this order on Mr. Shenkman.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: March 8, 2019
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28

Cook Mot. to Withdraw Proof of Service – ECF No. 366 at 5; Cook Proof of Service – ECF No. 370.
Additionally, Mr. Shenkman attended in person both the February 7, 2019 and the March 7, 2019
hearings where Mr. Cook’s motion was discussed.
5

ORDER – No. 16-cv-01609-LB

4