Madrid et al v. TeleNetwork Partners, Ltd. et al

Filing 57

ORDER GRANTING 55 JESSE L. YOUNG'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/13/2018. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

HUGO MADRID, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-04519-BLF

v.
TELENETWORK PARTNERS, LTD., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING JESSE L.
YOUNG’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW
AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
[Re: ECF 55]

12
13

Before the Court is Jesse L. Young’s (“Young”) motion to withdraw as counsel of record

14

in this matter for Plaintiffs pursuant to Civil Local Rule 11-5. See ECF 55 (“Mot.”). The time to

15

oppose the motion has passed and no party has filed an opposition. For the reasons that follow,

16

Young’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiffs is GRANTED.

17

The decision to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel is committed to

18

the sound discretion of the trial court. j2 Glob. Commc'ns, Inc. v. Blue Jay, Inc., No. C 08-

19

4254PJH, 2009 WL 464768, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2009) (citing LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d

20

1253, 1269 (9th Cir.)). In this district, the California Rules of Professional Conduct govern

21

withdrawal of counsel. See Nehad v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2008); j2 Glob.

22

Commc'ns, Inc. v. Blue Jay, Inc., No. C 08-4254PJH, 2009 WL 464768, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24,

23

2009). Moreover, under Civil Local Rule 11-5, “[c]ounsel may not withdraw from an action

24

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

25

client and to all other parties who have appeared in the case.” Where “withdrawal of an attorney

26

is not accompanied by simultaneous appearance of substitute counsel or agreement of the party to

27

appear pro se, leave to withdraw may be subject to the condition that papers may continue to be

28

served on counsel for forwarding purposes.” Civ. L.R. 11-5(b).

1

Here, Plaintiffs will continue to be represented in this action by Jahan C. Sagafi of Outten

2

& Golden LLP, as well as Kevin J. Stoops of Sommers Schwartz, P.C. See Mot. ¶ 2. Mr. Young

3

further represents that his withdrawal will not prejudice any party and will not delay the

4

prosecution of this matter. Id. ¶ 3. Given that Plaintiffs continue to be represented by counsel,

5

and that there is no opposition to the motion, the Court concludes that withdrawal will not

6

prejudice the parties or unduly delay resolution of this matter.

7

Accordingly, Jesse L. Young’s motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs is GRANTED.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Dated: February 13, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2