Shuang Zhang v. William Parfet

Filing 43

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 39 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. ; denying 37 Motion to Stay. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

SHUANG ZHANG,
Plaintiff,

13

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS PLAINTIFF’S
COUNSEL; DENYING MOTION TO
STAY

v.

14
15

Case No. 16-CV-04333-LHK

WILLIAM PARFET,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 37, 39

Defendant.

16
17
18

Plaintiff Shuang Zhang (“Plaintiff”) sues Defendant William Parfet (“Defendant”) for

19

sexual harassment, sex discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination. See ECF No. 1.

20

Before the Court are Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff,

21

ECF No. 37, and Plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings, ECF No. 39. The Court finds these

22

matters suitable for resolution without oral argument and accordingly VACATES the motions

23

hearing set for May 11, 2017. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the relevant law,

24

and the record in this case, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to withdraw as Plaintiff’s

25

counsel and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings.

26

I.

27
28

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on August 1, 2016. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff asserted five
1

Case No. 16-CV-04333-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL; DENYING MOTION TO STAY

1

causes of action against Defendant: (1) sexual harassment, in violation of California state law; (2)

2

sex discrimination, in violation of California state law; (3) retaliation, in violation of California

3

state law; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, in violation of

4

California state law; and (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. See id.

5

On October 31, 2016, Defendant answered the Complaint. ECF No. 19.

6

On February 24, 2017, the parties participated in mediation with private mediator Mark

7
8
9

Rudy, but the case did not settle. ECF No. 39-2 (“Kim Decl.”), at ¶ 12.
On March 3, 2017, “Plaintiff terminated her attorney-client relationship with Bohm Law
Group, Inc.” Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiff “explicitly instructed counsel not to take any further action on her
behalf.” Id. ¶ 13. On March 8, 2017, “Plaintiff requested counsel to substitute her in,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

representing herself pro se.” Id. ¶ 14 & Ex. A. Plaintiff also requested on March 8, 2017 that

12

counsel ask the Court for a 90 day stay of proceedings “so that [Plaintiff] may attempt to find a

13

new attorney.” Id.¶ 14.

14

On March 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay proceedings, which requested that the

15

Court stay proceedings for 90 days while Plaintiff sought new counsel. ECF No. 37 (“Mot. to

16

Stay”). Plaintiff’s motion stated that “[i]f litigation continue[d] without competent legal

17

representation, Plaintiff would have to conduct her own discovery and respond to opposing

18

counsel’s requests and demands.” Id. at 3. Accordingly, Plaintiff stated, she would face prejudice

19

if the Court did not stay proceedings for 90 days as Plaintiff sought new legal counsel. Id.

20
21

On March 27, 2017, Defendant filed an opposition to the motion to stay proceedings. ECF
No. 38 (“Opp. to Mot. to Stay”). Plaintiff did not file a Reply.

22

On March 28, 2017, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, Andrew Kim (“Kim”) of Bohm Law

23

Group, Inc. (“Bohm Law”), filed a motion to withdraw as Plaintiff’s counsel. ECF No. 39 (“Mot.

24

to Withdraw”). The motion asserted that Plaintiff had exercised her “absolute right to discharge

25

an attorney” and that Plaintiff “instructed and consented to the withdrawal of current counsel.” Id.

26

at 3; see also ECF No. 39-2, at ¶ 13.

27
28

On March 29, 2017, Defendant filed a motion of non-opposition to the motion to
2
Case No. 16-CV-04333-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL; DENYING MOTION TO STAY

1

withdraw. ECF No. 40.
On May 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of substitution of counsel. ECF No. 42. The

2
3

notice stated that Jody LeWitter of Siegel LeWitter and Malkani was substituting as counsel of

4

record for Plaintiff. See id.

5

II.

DISCUSSION

6

A.

Motion to Withdraw

7

“An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” Darby v. City of

8

Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992). Permission to withdraw is discretionary. See

9

United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009).
Civil Local Rule 11-4(a)(1) requires attorneys practicing in this district to “comply with

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the standards of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of California.” Rule

12

3–700 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California governs an attorney’s

13

withdrawal as counsel. Before withdrawing for any reason, an attorney must take “reasonable

14

steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving due

15

notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, complying with Rule 3–

16

700(D), and complying with applicable laws and rules.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3–700(A)(2).

17

In this case, Plaintiff discharged Kim and Bohm Law. See Mot. to Withdraw, at 3. The

18

California Rules of Professional Conduct permit withdrawal where the client “knowingly and

19

freely assents to termination of the employment.” See Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3–700(C)(1)(f), (5).

20

Thus, the Court finds good cause exists for withdrawal. Furthermore, the Court finds that counsel

21

has taken steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to Plaintiff. Plaintiff had “due notice” of

22

counsel’s withdrawal because Plaintiff terminated Bohm Law on March 3, 2017. See Cal. R. Prof.

23

Conduct 3–700(A)(2). Moreover, Plaintiff has joined in her counsel’s motion to withdraw, and

24

Defendant does not oppose the motion. See Mot. to Withdraw at 1. Further, other than the motion

25

to withdraw as Plaintiff’s counsel and Plaintiff’s motion to stay, there are no motions currently

26

pending. Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s and Plaintiff’s counsel motion to withdraw. See

27

DeLeon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2010 WL 3565188, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2010) (granting

28

3
Case No. 16-CV-04333-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL; DENYING MOTION TO STAY

1

motion to withdraw as counsel where the Plaintiff consented to the motion to withdraw and had

2

notice of the withdrawal).1

3

B.

Motion to Stay
Plaintiff has also filed a motion to stay, which requests that the Court stay proceedings for

4
5

90 days while Plaintiff retains new counsel. See Mot. to Stay. The only argument that Plaintiff

6

provides in support of her motion to stay is that Plaintiff will be prejudiced if the Court does not

7

stay proceedings because “[i]f litigation continues without competent legal representation,

8

Plaintiff w[ill] have to conduct her own discovery and respond to opposing counsel’s requests and

9

demands.” Id.
Plaintiff’s argument in support of a stay is now moot. On May 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

notice of substitution of counsel. ECF No. 42. Jody LeWitter of Siegel LeWitter Malkani has

12

substituted as counsel for Plaintiff, and thus Plaintiff no longer needs 90 days to seek and retain

13

new counsel. See id. Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to stay the proceedings.

14

III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel motion to

15
16

withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff, and the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to stay.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated:
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
1

25
26
27
28

Under Civil Local Rule 11-5(b), when withdrawal by an attorney is not accompanied by
simultaneous appearance of substitute counsel or agreement of the party to appear pro se, the court
may grant withdrawal subject to the condition that papers continue to be served on counsel for
forwarding purposes. In this case, a notice of substitution of counsel has been filed, ECF No. 42,
and thus the Court does not place any conditions on counsel’s withdrawal.
4
Case No. 16-CV-04333-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL; DENYING MOTION TO STAY