POGA MGMT PTNRS LLC v. Medfiler LLC et al

Filing 66

AMENDED ORDER re 65 Order on Motion to Shorten Time, (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 9/21/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
POGA MGT PTNRS LLC,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13

Plaintiff,

No. C 12-06087 SBA (LB)
AMENDED ORDER ON MOTION TO
WITHDRAW

v.
[Re: ECF NoS. 59, 60]

14

MEDFILER LLC et al.,

15
16
17

Defendants.
_____________________________________/
Plaintiff is represented by attorney Joseph Wilson, who moved to withdraw on September 12,

18

2014, on the ground that there has been a “total breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, such

19

that Counsel for Plaintiff is in conflict with Plaintiff, cannot carry out further representation, and

20

must mandatorily withdraw.” See Motion, ECF No. 59 at 3. Defendants respond that they do not

21

have facts to oppose the motion (given that Plaintiff’s counsel did not explain the context for the

22

breakdown), but they are concerned that a delay will prejudice the timing of the summary judgment

23

motion that they contemplate filing shortly. See Response, ECF No. 61 at 2. The district court

24

referred the matter to the undersigned on September 17, 2014. See Order, ECF No. 63.

25

Given the timing, the court grants the motion to shorten time, see ECF No. 60, and sets the

26

matter on its first available calendar on September 25, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. Counsel and Plaintiff

27

must appear personally. This order also sets forth the legal standard for withdrawal, and the court

28

directs Mr. Wilson to serve a copy of the order on his client before the hearing.
C 12-06087 SBA (LB)
ORDER

1

Under Civil Local Rule 11-5(a), “[c]ounsel may not withdraw from an action until relieved by

2

order of Court after written notice has been given reasonably in advance to the client and to all other

3

parties who have appeared in the case.” The local rules further provide that if the client does not

4

consent to the withdrawal and no substitution of counsel is filed, the motion to withdraw shall be

5

granted on the condition that all papers from the court and from the opposing party shall continue to

6

be served on that party’s current counsel for forwarding purposes until the client appears by other

7

counsel or pro se if the client is not a corporate defendant. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 11-5(b).

8

Withdrawal is governed by the California Rules of Professional Conduct. See Nehad v.

attorney withdrawal); j2 Global Commc’ns, Inc. v. Blue Jay, Inc., No. C 08-4254 PHJ, 2009 WL

11

464768, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2009) (citation omitted). California Rule of Professional Conduct

12
For the Northern District of California

Mukasey, 535 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying California Rules of Professional Conduct to

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

3-700(B) sets forth grounds requiring mandatory withdrawal, including the following: (1) a client’s

13

bringing a harassing or malicious lawsuit or (2) the attorney’s continued employment would violate

14

California’s ethics rules. Rule 3-700(C) sets forth several grounds under which an attorney may

15

request permission to withdraw, including the following: (1) a client (a) insists on presenting a claim

16

or defense not warranted under the law or a good-faith extension of it, (b) seeks to pursue an illegal

17

course of conduct, (c) insists that the attorney pursue an illegal course of conduct or conduct barred

18

by the ethics rules, (d) makes it unreasonably difficult for the attorney to carry out his employment

19

effectively, (e) insists (in a matter not pending before a tribunal) that the attorney act contrary to the

20

attorney’s judgment or advice, or (f) breaches an agreement or obligation as to fees; (2) the

21

attorney’s continued employment is likely to breach the ethics rules; or (3) the attorney believes in

22

good faith (in proceeding pending before a tribunal) that the tribunal will find other good cause for

23

the withdrawal.

24

The decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw is discretionary with the court, and the court

25

can use “its discretion to deny an attorney’s request to withdraw where such withdrawal would work

26

an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding.” Gong v. City of Alameda, No. C 03-05495

27

THE, 2008 WL 160964, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008) (citing Mandel v. Superior Court, 67 Cal.

28

App. 3d 1, 4 (1977)) (holding there was no prejudice or undue delay to client where counsel
C 12-06087 SBA (LB)
ORDER

2

1

provided sufficient notice of his intent to withdraw and where no trial date had yet been set in the

2

case).

3
4

The court notes that Plaintiff’s counsel gave notice under Civil Local Rule 11-5 of his intent to
withdraw to his client and Defendants’ counsel. See Wilson Decl., ECF No. 59, at 5.

5

This disposes of ECF No. 60.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: September 23, 2014
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

8
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 12-06087 SBA (LB)
ORDER

3