Blackmon et al v. Tobias

Filing 93

NOTICE OF REFERRAL AND ORDER (1) re: briefing schedule and telephonic hearing date for 83 85 Defendants' motions to withdraw and (2) CONTINUING hearing date on 22 Plaintiffs' motion for writ of attachment. See order for details. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 02/03/2012. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
JAMES BLACKMON, et al.,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14

Plaintiffs,
v.
GLENN TOBIAS, et al.,

15
16
17

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

No. C 11-02853 LB
NOTICE OF REFERRAL AND
ORDER (1) REGARDING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE AND TELEPHONIC
HEARING DATE FOR
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
WITHDRAW AND (2) CONTINUING
HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO WRIT OF
ATTACHMENT

The district court has referred the Andreae Defendants’ motion to withdraw and the Tobias

18

Defendants’ motion to withdraw to the undersigned for a report and recommendation. Order of

19

Reference, ECF No. 92; see Andreae Defendants’ Motion, ECF No. 83; Tobias Defendants’ Motion,

20

ECF No. 85.

21

“In ruling on a motion to withdraw, some courts have looked to the following factors: 1) the

22

reasons why withdrawal is sought; 2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; 3) the

23

harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and 4) the degree to which withdrawal

24

will delay the resolution of the case.” Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. Edwin Moldauer, No.

25

1:02-cv-06599 OWW DLB, 2009 WL 89141, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009) (citing Irwin v.

26

Mascott, No. 97-4737, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28264, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2004); Beard v.

27

Shuttermart of California, Inc., No. 07CV594WQH(NLS), 2008 WL 410694, at *2 (S.D.Cal.

28

Feb.13, 2008); Rusinow v. Kamara, 920 F.Supp. 69, 71 (D.N.J.1996)).

C 11-02853 LB

1

Citing California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(c)(1), both sets of counsel say that

2

“irreconcilable differences” have arisen between them and their clients that make their continued

3

representation impossible. Andreae Defendants’ Motion, ECF No. 83 at 2; Tobias Defendants’

4

Motion, ECF No. 85 at 1. California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(c)(1), in turn, provides

5

that an attorney may permissively seek to withdraw if his or her client:

6

(a) insists upon presenting a claim or defense that is not warranted under existing law
and cannot be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or
reversal of existing law, or
(b) seeks to pursue an illegal course of conduct, or
(c) insists that the member pursue a course of conduct that is illegal or that is
prohibited under these rules or the State Bar Act, or
(d) by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the
employment effectively, or
(e) insists, in a matter not pending before a tribunal, that the member engage in
conduct that is contrary to the judgment and advice of the member but not prohibited
under these rules or the State Bar Act, or
(f) breaches an agreement or obligation to the member as to expenses or fees.

7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13

California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(c)(1).

14

Defendants did not specify which of the above situations might apply here or show how the

15

above-referenced factors are met. See Andreae Defendants’ Motion, ECF No. 83 at 1-3; Tobias

16

Defendants’ Motion, ECF No. 85 at 1-2. Nor did Defendants notice their motions for hearing in

17

accordance with this District’s Civil Local Rule 7-2, resulting in a lack of adequate briefing on the

18

issues.

19

Without more information from Defendants’ counsel, and without full briefing on their motions,

20

the court cannot make a reasoned decision. Accordingly, the court ORDERS the Andreae

21

Defendants and the Tobias Defendants, no later than February 8, 2012, to file briefs in support of

22

their motions that address the factors stated above and all other applicable law. Should they need to

23

submit documents to the court in camera for privilege reasons, they may do so. Plaintiffs then shall

24

have until February 13, 2012 to file briefs in opposition to Defendants’ briefs. After that, the court

25

shall conduct a telephonic hearing on February 16, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. to discuss the matter with the

26

parties.

27
28

Given Defendants’ motions to withdraw, as well as the hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss
being continued to March 27, 2012, the court finds good cause to continue the hearing on Plaintiffs’

C 11-02853 LB

2

1

motion for writ of attachment, currently set for February 16, 2012, to April 5, 2012 at 11:00 a.m.

2

Along with the issues related to the motions to withdraw, the parties also should be prepared to

3

briefly discuss at the February 16, 2011 telephonic hearing the substantive and procedural interplay

4

between Plaintiffs’ motion for writ of attachment and Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

5
6
7
8

The parties shall contact the court’s courtroom deputy Lashanda Scott at [phone] to make
the necessary arrangements for the February 16, 2012 telephonic hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 3, 2012
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C 11-02853 LB

3