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)

Download PDF
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 (510) 637-3525 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

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?