Estate of Robert Renzel, Deceased et al v. Ventura et al

Filing 172

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 164 MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR HYANG BAE WHANG, SEON GEUN WHANG, AND KYU CHUK WHANG. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ROBERT E. RENZEL TRUST, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,
v.

9
10

ALFREDO TORRES, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-01648-HSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR
HYANG BAE WHANG, SEON GEUN
WHANG, AND KYU CHUK WHANG
Re: Dkt. No. 164

Hyang Bae Whang, Seon Geun Whang, and Kyu Chuk Whang (“Whangs”) have been

12
13

represented in this action by Kathleen N. Strickland (“Attorney Strickland”), Stephan Choo

14

(“Attorney Choo”), Devin C. Courteau (“Attorney Courteau”), and the law firm Ropers, Majeski,

15

Kohn, & Bentley, PC (“Ropers Firm”). Dkt. Nos. 34, 164. On April 21, 2017, Attorney

16

Strickland, Attorney Choo, and the Ropers Firm filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for the

17

Whangs. Dkt. No. 164. The motion is unopposed. At the in camera hearing held on June 22,

18

2017, Seon Geun Whang appeared on behalf of the Whangs and Attorney Choo appeared for

19

Attorney Strickland and the Ropers Firm. Attorney Choo informed the Court that Attorney

20

Courteau left the Ropers Firm and so no longer represents the Whangs. Seon Geun Whang

21

confirmed that the Whangs consented to withdrawal and understood the challenges and

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

responsibilities of proceeding without counsel. Based on the relevant legal authority, the papers,
and the representations made at the hearing, the Court GRANTS the motion to withdraw.
I.

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

by order of Court after written notice has been given reasonably in advance to the client and to all
other parties who have appeared in the case.” Withdrawal is governed by the California Rules of
Professional Conduct. j2 Glob. Commc’ns, Inc. v. Blue Jay, Inc., No. C 08-4254 PJH, 2009 WL

1

464768, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2009)). Under Rule 3-700(C), an attorney may only request

2

permission to withdraw on certain grounds, of which two are relevant here. See CA ST RPC Rule

3

3-700(C). First, a request for withdrawal is permitted where “[t]he client knowingly and freely

4

assents to termination of employment.” Id., Rule 3-700(C)(5). In addition, a request for

5

withdrawal is permitted where the attorney “believes in good faith . . . that the tribunal will find

6

the existence of other good cause for withdrawal.” Id., Rule 3-700(C)(6). The decision to grant or

7

deny a motion to withdraw is within the Court’s discretion. Gong v. City of Alameda, No. C 03-

8

05495 TEH, 2008 WL 160964, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008).

9

II.

DISCUSSION
Local Civil Rule 11-5(a) is satisfied because the filing of the motion over two months ago

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

gave all parties reasonable advance notice of withdrawal. See Dkt. No. 164. The Whangs appear

12

to have had even more advance notice, given that the mutual agreement to terminate the

13

representation was discussed by Attorney Choo and Seon Geun Whang at least as early as January

14

18, 2017. See id. at 6. The filing of the motion was also permitted by the California Rules of

15

Professional Conduct. Attorney Choo’s declaration and Seon Geun Whang’s statements at the

16

hearing established that the Whangs “knowingly and freely assent[ed] to termination of

17

employment.” See id.; CA ST RPC 3-700(C). Moreover, Attorney Choo’s representations at the

18

hearing demonstrated that the motion was filed with a good faith belief in the existence of good

19

cause for withdrawal. See id., Rule 3-700(C)(6). After careful consideration, the Court finds in its

20

discretion that withdrawal is warranted. See Gong, 2008 WL 160964, at *1.

21

III.

CONCLUSION

22

The Court GRANTS the motion to withdraw. Attorney Choo, Attorney Stickland, and the

23

Ropers Firm must comply with all legal and professional obligations relating to the termination of

24

employment, including California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(D).

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 6/23/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
2