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
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?