Silicon Laboratories, Inc. v. Cresta Technology Corporation

Filing 189

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal denying 171 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SILICON LABORATORIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

Case No. 14-cv-03227-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
(Re: Docket No. 171)

10

CRESTA TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
For the second time in less than a year, counsel for Defendant Cresta Technology

13
14

Corporation seeks the court’s permission to withdraw.1 CrestaTech’s first set of lawyers moved to

15

withdraw in May 2015, with the consent of their client.2 Over Plaintiff Silicon Laboratories, Inc.’s

16

objection, the court granted the request and extended certain case deadlines.3 However, the court

17

warned CrestaTech that “we are going to go forward with this schedule” and “[t]here will be no

18

further delays.”4 CrestaTech’s new counsel entered the fray on June 175 and promptly sought to

19

extend deadlines for discovery.6 The court denied the request.7

20

1

See Docket No. 171; see also Docket No. 75.

2

See Docket No. 75.

3

See Docket No. 80.

4

Docket No. 82 at 12:23-24.

5

See Docket No. 84.

6

See Docket No. 94.

27

7

See Docket No. 98.

28

1
Case No. 14-cv-03227-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

21
22
23
24
25
26

Now, less than two months from trial,8 CrestaTech’s attorneys again ask the court to open

1
2

the escape hatch.9 They also move to stay proceedings while CrestaTech finds new counsel. This

3

time, justifiably concerned about the difficulty of finding new representation at this late date,

4

CrestaTech does not consent to the withdrawal.10 Nevertheless, CrestaTech’s counsel claims that

5

it cannot continue and must mandatorily withdraw.
The California Rules of Professional Conduct govern whether and how attorneys may

6
7

withdraw from representing their clients.11 The grounds for mandatory withdrawal are extremely

8

limited and include only a client’s bringing a harassing or malicious lawsuit, imminent violation of

9

ethical rules or the lawyer’s mental or physical impairment.12 An attorney can request the court’s
permission to withdraw, however, for a broader set of reasons, including the unreasonable

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

difficulty of representation, breach of a fee agreement or “other good cause for withdrawal,”

12

among others.13 “The court has discretion to grant or deny a motion to withdraw, and it can

13

exercise that discretion, and decide to deny such a motion, ‘where such withdrawal would work an

14

injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding.’”14
Today, both client and counsel appeared at an ex parte hearing to explain the reasons for

15
16

the motion to withdraw.15 The court finds that none of the circumstances justifying mandatory

17
18

8

Trial is scheduled for March 28, 2016. See Docket No. 36.

19

9

See Docket No. 171.

20

10

See Docket No. 171-1 at ¶ 7.

21

11

See Nehad v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 962, 970-71 (9th Cir. 2008).

12

See Cal. Rules of Prof’l Conduct 3-700(B).

13

Id. 3-700(C).

22
23
24

14

25
26
27
28

Adams v. City of Hayward, Case No. 14-cv-05482-KAW, 2015 WL 5316124, at *1 (N.D. Cal.
Sept. 11, 2015) (quoting Gong v. City of Alameda, Case No. 03-cv-05495-TEH, 2008 WL 160964,
at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008)).
15

See Docket No. 188.

2
Case No. 14-cv-03227-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

1

withdrawal applies here. Further, in light of the impending trial date and its earlier promises, the

2

court is not inclined to stay proceedings at this late stage, and allowing CrestaTech’s counsel to

3

depart the case would leave CrestaTech in an untenable position. All in all, granting the motion to

4

withdraw would necessarily either “work an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding.”16

5

The motion is DENIED.

6

SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: January 29, 2016
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

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

16

Adams, 2015 WL 5316124, at *1 (quoting Gong, 2008 WL 160964, at *1).

3
Case No. 14-cv-03227-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL