Magana v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A et al

Filing 41

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING ATTORNEYS 13 MOTION TO WITHDRAW, SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR 24 MOTION TO DISMISS AND 25 MOTION TO STRIKE, RESETTING ADR DEADLINE AND RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2011)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 VICTORIA P. MAGANA, an individual, Plaintiff, 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; LSI TITLE COMPANY, a California Corporation; and NDEX WEST LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, Defendants. ________________________________/ No. C 11-3993 CW ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW, SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE, RESETTING ADR DEADLINE AND RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 12 13 Movant Nick Pacheco, Esq., of Nick Pacheco Law Group, APC, 14 counsel for Plaintiff Victoria P. Magana, seeks leave of this 15 Court, pursuant to Local Rule 11-5(a), and under California Rules 16 of Professional Conduct 3-700, to withdraw as counsel for 17 Plaintiff. 18 October 6, 2011. 19 submissions and oral argument on the motion, the Court GRANTS the 20 motion to withdraw. 21 Plaintiff opposes the motion. The matter was heard on Having considered all of the parties’ Civil Local Rule 11-4(a)(1) requires attorneys practicing in 22 this district to “comply with the standards of professional 23 conduct required of members of the State Bar of California.” 24 California Rules of Professional Conduct allow members of the 25 California Bar to withdraw from representation with leave of the 26 Court for several reasons, including if a client “renders it 27 unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment 28 effectively,” if the client “breaches an agreement or obligation The 1 to the member as to expenses or fees,” or for “other good cause.” 2 Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d),(f), 3-700(C)(6). 3 withdrawing, an attorney must take “reasonable steps to avoid 4 reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, 5 including due notice to the client, [and] allowing time for 6 employment of other counsel[.]” 7 3-700(A)(2). 8 9 Before Cal. R. Prof. Conduct In the present case, Movant argues that there is good cause for withdrawal under each of these subsections. Movant contends, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 and Plaintiff admits, that Plaintiff has stopped payment on the 11 retainer check and has refused to pay Movant. 12 that she is not required to pay Movant at this time, because she 13 employed Movant to perform a loan modification for her and she 14 does not have to pay Movant until he has obtained a loan 15 modification for her. 16 Plaintiff employed Movant to pursue the instant action to prevent 17 the foreclosure of her house. 18 has been uncommunicative with him and his firm, and that 19 Plaintiff’s husband or boyfriend has harassed the firm. 20 Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to pay for 21 legal services and the breakdown of the attorney-client 22 relationship, which renders representation unreasonably difficult, 23 constitute good cause for withdrawal. 24 that Movant taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable 25 prejudice to Plaintiff, including providing Plaintiff with timely 26 notice of his intent to withdraw and of this Motion, allowing 27 ample time to secure alternate counsel, and continuing to 28 represent her in obtaining a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff asserts However, the record demonstrates that Movant also asserts that Plaintiff 2 Further, the Court finds 1 The motion to withdraw is GRANTED. If Plaintiff wishes to 2 pursue this litigation, she must retain new counsel or represent 3 herself in propria persona. 4 new counsel, Defendants must serve a paper copy on Plaintiff of 5 any documents that Defendants file on the court’s Electronic Case 6 Filing system. 7 Until and unless Plaintiff retains The current briefing and hearing schedules for Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike are vacated. 9 Plaintiff’s opposition to those motions is due on November 17, 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 8 2011. Defendants’ reply, if any, is due on November 28, 2011. 11 motions will be decided on the papers. 12 an opposition to these motions, this case will be dismissed for 13 failure to prosecute. The If Plaintiff fails to file 14 In an order dated August 29, 2011, this Court referred the 15 parties to the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Unit for an 16 initial assessment by telephone by September 16, 2011. 17 parties have participated in one telephone call with the ADR unit 18 and have represented to the Court that they need to participate in 19 a second call to complete the initial assessment. 20 shall participate in a further telephone conference to be 21 scheduled by the ADR Unit for a date before November 10, 2011. 22 The The parties The parties are currently set to appear for a case management 23 conference on November 8, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. 24 conference is continued to December 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. 25 Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule 16-9(a) and the Standing Order 26 for All Judges of the Northern District of California, the parties 27 are to submit a Joint Case Management Statement, or separate 28 statements, on or before December 13, 2011. 3 This case management In the event that 1 Plaintiff fails to file a statement or does not appear at the 2 conference in person or through counsel, her claims will be 3 dismissed for failure to prosecute. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 7 Dated: 10/18/2011 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?