Summerfield et al v. Strategic Lending Corporation et al

Filing 107

ORDER (1) CONTINUING Show Cause Hearing and (2) GRANTING 106 Plaintiffs' Counsel's Motion for Leave to Withdraw. The Court CONTINUES the show cause hearing to October 4, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2, Fifth Floor, United States District Court, 280 S. First Street, San Jose, California, 95113. At that time, Plaintiffs (or any newly-retained counsel) shall appear to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 8/4/2011. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2011)

1

** E-filed August 4, 2011 **

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

8

United States District Court

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

ED SUMMERFIELD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14

v.
STRATEGIC LENDING CORPORATION,
et al.,

15
16
17

No. C09-02609 HRL
ORDER (1) CONTINUING SHOW
CAUSE HEARING AND (2)
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO WITHDRAW
[Re: Docket Nos. 104, 106]

Defendants.
____________________________________/
On July 11, 2011, this Court ordered Plaintiffs to appear on August 2, 2011 to show cause

18

why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Docket No. 104. Plaintiffs appeared

19

through counsel on August 2, but he explained that Plaintiffs have terminated his representation and

20

will no longer communicate with him. Docket No. 105. In light of these circumstances, he stated

21

that he would file a motion for leave to withdraw as Plaintiffs’ counsel. Id. As promised, he did so

22

the next day. Docket No. 106.

23

Under this District’s civil local rules, “[c]ounsel may not withdraw from an action until

24

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

25

to all other parties who have appeared in the case.” Civ. L. R. 11-5(a). Moreover, “[w]hen

26

withdrawal by an attorney from an action is not accompanied by simultaneous appearance of

27

substitute counsel or agreement of the party to appear pro se, leave to withdraw may be subject to

28

the condition that papers may continue to be served on counsel for forwarding purposes . . . , unless

1

and until the client appears by other counsel or pro se. When this condition is imposed, counsel

2

must notify the party of this condition. Any filed consent by the party to counsel’s withdrawal under

3

these circumstances must include acknowledgment of this condition.” Civ. L. R. 11-5(b).
Based on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion and declaration in support, the Court finds that the

4
5

relationship between Plaintiffs and their counsel has deteriorated to the point that he cannot

6

effectively represent them. And since they have terminated his representation and will no longer

7

communicate with him, notice to them is unnecessary. Accordingly, his motion for leave to

8

withdraw is GRANTED.1 However, since he makes no mention of the simultaneous appearance of

9

substitute counsel or of any agreement by Plaintiffs’ to appear pro se, the withdrawal is subject to

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

the condition that papers may continue to be served on him for forwarding purposes unless and until

11

Plaintiffs either engage new counsel or agree to represent themselves pro se. Plaintiffs shall notify

12

the Court of their decision in this regard. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall notify Plaintiffs of this condition.
In addition, the Court CONTINUES the show cause hearing to October 4, 2011 at 10:00

13
14

a.m. in Courtroom 2, Fifth Floor, United States District Court, 280 S. First Street, San Jose,

15

California, 95113. At that time, Plaintiffs (or any newly-retained counsel) shall appear to show

16

cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. If a voluntary dismissal is filed,

17

the show cause hearing will be automatically vacated.

18
IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: August 4, 2011

21

HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds the matter suitable for determination without
oral argument, and the September 13, 2011 hearing is VACATED.
2

1

C09-02609 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2

Jonathan Harold Miller
Russell Alan Robinson
Vincent J. Kilduff

3
4

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

5
6
7
8
9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3