Gaines v. Stanford Health Care et al

Filing 14

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore granting in part and denying in part 6 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Counsel to continue to serve all papers on Plaintiff until new counsel is obtained. Plaintiff must obtain new counsel by 2/10/2017 or the case will be dismissed without prejudice. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TOMIYA GAINES,

Case No. 4:15-cv-05631-KAW

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

v.
9
10

STANFORD HEALTH CARE, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 6

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On October 13, 2016, Plaintiff Tomiya Gaines’s counsel Kevin A. Seely, Robbins Arroyo

14

LLP, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel in light of the written agreement with Plaintiff that

15

counsel would not continue to represent her if the Government declined to intervene in the qui tam

16

action. (Mot., Dkt. No. 6 at 2; Decl. of Kevin A. Seely, “Seely Decl.,” Dkt. No. 7 ¶ 2.) Mr. Seely

17

states that Plaintiff has communicated her understanding that he will no longer serve as counsel,

18

that she intends to pursue the action, and has attempted to retain new counsel. (Seely Decl. ¶¶ 10-

19

11.) On October 3, 2016, Plaintiff emailed Mr. Seely and requested that he withdraw. (Seely Decl.

20

¶ 12.) The motion was filed shortly thereafter.

21

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

22

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

23

other parties who have appeared in the case.”

24

The local rules further provide that if the withdrawal is not accompanied by simultaneous

25

appearance of substitute counsel or agreement of the party to appear pro se, the motion to

26

withdraw may be granted on the condition that all papers from the court and from the opposing

27

party shall continue to be served on that party’s current counsel for forwarding purposes until the

28

client appears by other counsel or pro se. Civil L.R. 11-5(b).

1

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral

2

argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART

3

Counsel’s motion to withdraw. Specifically, the motion for conditional withdrawal is GRANTED,

4

but Counsel’s request to have all pleadings served on Plaintiff directly is DENIED. Pursuant to

5

Civil Local Rule 11-5(b), all “papers may continue to be served on counsel for forwarding

6

purposes, unless and until the client appears by other counsel . . . .”

7

Plaintiff is advised that, unless she is an attorney licensed to practice law in the Northern

8

District of California, she cannot prosecute this case as a pro se litigant. Stoner v. Santa Clara Cty.

9

Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2007). As a qui tam relator in a False Claims
Act action, Plaintiff is also representing the United States, and binding the Government to any

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

adverse judgment. Id. Thus, the failure to obtain new counsel would require that the case be

12

dismissed. Id. at 1128. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall obtain new counsel and file a notice of

13

appearance on or before February 10, 2017. Any failure to timely retain substitute counsel will

14

result in the dismissal of the case without prejudice. Id.

15
16
17
18

Mr. Seely shall serve this and all other orders on Plaintiff until new counsel is obtained,
and shall file certificates of service on the docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 9, 2016
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2