Jara v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC et al

Filing 69

ORDER DENYING 52 53 Plaintiff's Counsel's Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 12/14/2011. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 Northern District of California 10 Oakland Division JOSE A. JARA, 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 No. C 11-00419 LB Plaintiff, v. 13 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, et al., 14 15 Defendants. _____________________________________/ 16 Presently, plaintiff Jose Jara is represented by two attorneys: Glenn Moss and Patricia Turnage. 17 On October 31, 2011, Mr. Moss filed a motion to withdraw as Mr. Jara’s counsel. Motion, ECF No. 18 52. 1 In his motion and accompanying declaration, Mr. Moss says that withdrawal is appropriate 19 because: (1) Mr. Jara is unable to pay for both he and Ms. Turnage; “unhappy differences” have 20 arisen between him and Ms. Turnage; and (3) Ms. Turnage will still have the help of her associate 21 Megan Irish, so Mr. Turnage would not be prejudiced. Id. at 3.2 22 Under Civil Local Rule 11-5(a), “[c]ounsel may not withdraw from an action until relieved by 23 order of Court after written notice has been given reasonably in advance to the client and to all other 24 25 26 1 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page number at the top of the document, not the pages at the bottom. 2 27 28 On November 7, 2011, the court prematurely issued an order granting Mr. Moss’s motion. November 7 Order, ECF No. 54. Because the time for filing opposition and reply briefs had not yet passed, the court vacated its November 7 Order. Amended Order Vacating November 7 Order, ECF No. 56. C 11-00419 LB 1 parties who have appeared in the case.” And under the retainer agreement among Mr. Jara and both 2 of his attorneys, Mr. Moss and Ms. Turnage may withdraw only: (1) with Mr. Jara’s consent; or (2) 3 for good cause. Retainer Agreement, ECF No. 57-1 at 2. allow him to withdraw. The courts finds that there is none. First, Mr. Moss’s claim that Mr. Jara is 6 unable to pay for the attorneys that he retained is unsupported, as Mr. Jara has not submitted any 7 declaration to that effect. In fact, Mr. Jara – who Mr. Moss says was informed of his intention to 8 request leave to withdraw – has yet to inform anyone of his opinion about Mr. Moss’s motion. 9 Second, while there indeed may be “unhappy differences” between Mr. Moss and Ms. Turnage (she 10 confirmed this in her opposition), neither Mr. Moss nor Ms. Turnage have provided the court with 11 sufficient facts in this regard. See Motion, ECF No. 52 at 3 (merely mentioning that “unhappy 12 For the Northern District of California As stated above, Mr. Jara has not given Mr. Moss his consent, so there must be good cause to 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 differences have developed”); Opposition, ECF No. 57 at 4 (confirming that “‘unhappy differences’ 13 have arisen between [Mr. Moss and I] on an unrelated unresolved matter”); Reply, ECF No. 63 at 3 14 (“Without going into specifics . . . .”). Third, Ms. Turnage reports that Ms. Irish will soon be on 15 maternity leave, so she may not be able to assist Ms. Turnage with this case in the immediate future 16 (which will involve, should Mr. Jara so choose, the filing of another amended complaint and perhaps 17 an opposition to a motion to dismiss). See Order Granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, ECF 18 No. 68. On the record before it, the court does not find good cause to allow Mr. Moss to withdraw. 19 His motion is DENIED without prejudice.3 20 This disposes of ECF Nos. 52, 53. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: December 14, 2011 _______________________________ LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court finds that this matter is suitable for determination without oral argument and vacates the December 15, 2011 hearing. C 11-00419 LB 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?