Alavi et al v. City of Albany et al

Filing 48

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 33 MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

AMIR ALAVI, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No.17-cv-04014-HSG

v.
CITY OF ALBANY, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS PLAINTIFFS’
COUNSEL
Re: Dkt. No. 33

12
13

Pending before the Court is an unopposed motion to withdraw as counsel by Brian K.

14

Ross, attorney for Plaintiffs Amir Alavi and Mehdi Alavi. Dkt. No. 33 (“Mot.”). For the reasons

15

set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

16

Mr. Ross filed this motion on March 25, 2018. He sought to withdraw as Plaintiffs’

17

counsel because of a “serious conflict,” which he contended required him to “seek either the

18

voluntary termination of his representation of [Plaintiffs’] interests in this matter or that he seek

19

the court’s permission to so terminate his representation.” See Mot. at 2; see also Dkt. No. 35

20

(Declaration of Brian K. Ross, or “Ross Decl.”) ¶ 2; see also id. ¶ 3 (“[I]t is my belief that the

21

situation is so dire that my request to withdraw is mandatory under our rules.”). Plaintiffs

22

nevertheless “refuse[d] to voluntarily relinquish” Mr. Ross as their attorney of record. See Ross

23

Decl. ¶ 2. Mr. Ross represented that he could, if necessary, provide more information about the

24

conflict at the May 10, 2018 hearing on this motion, to the extent it was consistent with his duty to

25

maintain his clients’ confidences. See Mot. at 2; Ross Decl. ¶ 3.

26

On May 9, 2018, however—one day before the hearing—Mr. Ross filed a motion to

27

“continue or drop” his motion to withdraw, “on the grounds that the parties have met and have

28

apparently resolved their differences with regard to the prosecution of this matter.” Dkt. No. 45 at

1

1-2. It is unclear why Mr. Ross did not simply withdraw his motion. It is also unclear whether

2

Mr. Ross was referring to the resolution of the underlying dispute between Plaintiffs and

3

Defendants or his own dispute with Plaintiffs. In any event, the Court denied the motion, see Dkt.

4

No. 47, so that the parties could provide further clarification regarding the status of the case. But

5

neither Mr. Ross nor counsel for Defendants appeared at the hearing. Plaintiffs, who the Court

6

had ordered to appear at the hearing in person, see Dkt. No. 44, also failed to appear.

7

Accordingly, based on Mr. Ross’ apparent representation that the underlying dispute has

8

been resolved, his motion to withdraw is DENIED. An order to show cause for the failure to

9

appear will issue separately.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 5/10/2018

12
13
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2