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)
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?