Thede v. United Airlines, Inc.

Filing 73

ORDER GRANTING 71 MOTION TO WITHDRAW by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. (pjhlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JEREMIAH THEDE,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-03528-PJH

Plaintiff,

8
v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW

UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 71

Defendant.

12
13

The court is in receipt of attorney Michael Danko’s (“attorney Danko”) application

14

to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff. Dkt. 71. Attorney Danko seeks to withdraw both

15

himself and his law firm, Danko Meredith. Id. at 2. Good cause appearing, the court

16

hereby GRANTS the application as stated herein.

17

Local Rule 11-4 requires that any attorney barred in this district comply with the

18

California Rules of Professional Conduct. Civ. L.R. 11-4(a)(1). California Rule of

19

Professional Conduct 1.16 generally permits an attorney to withdraw from representing a

20

client if “the client . . . renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the

21

representation effectively,” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(b)(4), or “the lawyer believes in

22

good faith . . . that the tribunal will find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal,”

23

id. 1.16(b)(10). Additionally, Local Rule 11-5 permits a lawyer to withdraw from an action

24

only if relieved by court order “after written notice has been given reasonably in advance

25

to the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case.” Civ. L.R. 11-5(a).

26

In support of his application, Attorney Danko and his associate, Shawn Miller

27

(“attorney Miller”) (collective with attorney Danko, “counsel”), state that there has been an

28

irreconcilable “breakdown” in attorney-client communications and that such breakdown

1

became apparent in early November. Dkt. 71-1 ¶¶ 11-12; Dkt. 71-2 ¶ 6. While not

2

detailed in their declarations, it appears that counsel have attempted but been unable to

3

obtain plaintiff’s agreement to appear pro se or retain substitute counsel. Dkt. 71 at 2.

4

Based on counsels’ representations, the court finds that the requested withdrawal is

5

justified under the California Rules of Professional Conduct.

6

Additionally, in his declaration, attorney Miller stated that he prepared a letter

7

addressed to plaintiff indicating his firm’s intent to withdraw and that such letter was sent

8

to plaintiff by overnight mail on November 17, 2020. Dkt. 71-2 ¶ 7. It also appears that

9

counsel personally served plaintiff with this application’s papers on or around November
18, 2020. Dkt. 72 (certificate of service). Based on these filings, the court finds that

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

attorney Danko and his firm have provided plaintiff with reasonable notice of their intent

12

to withdraw.

13

CONCLUSION

14

Given the above, the court GRANTS the application to withdraw (Dkt. 71). Except

15

as conditioned below, Attorney Danko and his law firm are terminated from this action

16

effective immediately. The court permits plaintiff until December 31, 2020 to appear pro

17

se or retain substitute counsel. If plaintiff fails to file a notice of appearance by that date,

18

the court may enter a Rule 41(b) order of dismissal for failure to prosecute.

19

As a condition of withdrawal, the court ORDERS counsel to continue to receive

20

and forward any filings or other papers in this action until plaintiff appears pro se or

21

retains substitute counsel. Civ. L.R. 11-5(b). This condition expires on December 31,

22

2020. To the extent counsel has not already, it must release any client property in its

23

possession as required under the California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(e).

24

Incident to the above, the court orders counsel to immediately inform plaintiff of this order

25

and the above-referenced condition of withdrawal.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28
2

1
2
3

Dated: November 25, 2020
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3