Sharma et al v. Wachovia
Filing
68
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting in part and denying in part 62 plaintiffs' Motion to Amend; denying as moot 65 plaintiffs' Motion to Change Attorney; granting 66 plaintiffs' counsel's Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. 1/31/2012 hearing vacated. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint due by 2/29/2012. Attorney Ali Nehme terminated. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2012)
1
*E-FILED: January 24, 2012*
2
3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
7
RAJ KUMARI SHARMA and KARTARI LAL
SHARMA,
12
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
15
WACHOVIA BANK; DOES 1-10, inclusive,
No. C10-04548 HRL
ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW;
(2) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS’
“MOTION TO CHANGE ATTORNEY”;
AND (3) GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFFS’ “MOTION TO AMEND
COMPLAINT AND PERSONALLY
APPEAR IN COURT”
16
[Re: Docket Nos. 62, 65, 66]
Defendants.
17
/
18
19
Plaintiffs Raj Kumari Sharma and Kartari Lal Sharma sue for damages allegedly arising
20
out of the refinancing of their home mortgage and the subsequent non-judicial foreclosure sale
21
of the subject property.1 The parties have engaged in several rounds of motions practice over
22
the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ pleadings. Most recently, this court granted defendant Wachovia’s
23
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint and gave
24
plaintiffs until January 3, 2012 to file a Third Amended Complaint.
Now before the court is attorney Ali Nehme’s motion for permission to withdraw as
25
26
plaintiffs’ counsel of record. Plaintiffs themselves have appeared on a pro se basis and
27
separately filed a “Motion to Change Attorney,” as well as a motion requesting an extension of
28
All parties have expressly consented that all proceedings in this matter may be
heard and finally adjudicated by the undersigned. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); FED. R. CIV. P. 73.
1
1
time to file their amended complaint. The court has received no opposition to any of these
2
motions, and the time for submitting any opposition or response has passed. The motions are
3
deemed suitable for determination without oral argument. The January 31, 2012 hearing
4
therefore is vacated. CIV. L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the moving papers, the court rules as
5
follows:
6
“Counsel may not withdraw from an action until relieved by order of Court after written
appeared in the case.” CIV. L.R. 11-5(a). “In the Northern District of California, the conduct of
9
counsel is governed by the standards of professional conduct required of members of the State
10
Bar of California, including the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California.”
11
For the Northern District of California
notice has been given reasonably in advance to the client and to all other parties who have
8
United States District Court
7
Hill Design Group v. Wang, No. C04-521 JF (RS), 2006 WL 3591206 at *4 (N.D. Cal., Dec.
12
11, 2006) (citing Elan Transdermal Limited v. Cygnus Therapeutic Systems, 809 F. Supp. 1383,
13
1387 (N.D. Cal.1992)). Those standards provide that an attorney may seek permission to
14
withdraw if, among other things, the client’s conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the
15
attorney to represent the client effectively. Id. (citing Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct Rule
16
3-700(C)(1)(d), (f)). Citing “irreconcilable differences over the management of the litigation,”
17
Nehme says that his withdrawal is necessary. Plaintiffs evidently agree. Nehme’s motion is
18
granted.
19
Nehme’s motion for permission to withdraw having been granted, plaintiffs’ separate
20
“Motion to Change Attorney” is denied as moot. In any event, plaintiffs need not obtain the
21
court’s preapproval if they wish to discharge Nehme as their counsel of record.
22
Plaintiffs also request an extension of time to file their Third Amended Complaint while
23
they look for a new lawyer. This matter has been pending for over a year; and, plaintiffs have
24
already had several opportunities to amend their pleadings to correct identified deficiencies.
25
The court therefore is disinclined to give plaintiffs an open-ended extension of time to file their
26
Third Amended Complaint while they attempt to find new counsel. They will be given until
27
February 29, 2012 to file their amended complaint. The Sharmas are further advised that the
28
2
1
court does not believe it would be fair or fruitful to unduly delay these proceedings while they
2
attempt to find other representation, which conceivably could take a substantial amount of time.
3
Meanwhile, plaintiffs are encouraged to obtain a copy of the Pro Se Handbook and other
4
resources that may be available for self-represented parties at
5
http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants. They may also wish to contact the Federal Legal
6
Assistance Self-Help Center (FLASH), located on the 4th Floor of the Federal Courthouse in
7
San Jose. Appointments with FLASH may be made by signing up at the Center or by calling
8
408-297-1480.
9
Dated: January 24, 2012
11
HOWARD R. LLOYD
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
SO ORDERED.
12
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
1
5:10-cv-04548-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:
2
Ali Nehme
3
Elizabeth Christine Hehir chehir@afrct.com, afrctecf@afrct.com, cdaniel@afrct.com,
emartinez@afrct.com, rbailey@afrct.com
nehme29@sbcglobal.net
4
5
Frederick James Hickman fhickman@afrct.com, AFRCTECF@afrct.com,
dpandy@afrct.com, jashley@afrct.com
6
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.
7
8
5:10-cv-04548-HRL Notice sent by U.S. Mail to:
9
Kartari Lal Sharma
240 Pamela Avenue, Apt. 4
San Jose, CA 95116
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
Raj Kumari Sharma
240 Pamela Avenue, Apt. 4
San Jose, CA 95116
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?