Stanford v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.

Filing 35

Order by Judge Lucy H. Koh Denying 32 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel Without Prejudice.(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2019)

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

ROSA STANFORD,
Plaintiff,

13
v.

14
15

INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC.,

Case No. 18-CV-02232-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
Re: Dkt. No. 32

Defendant.

16
17

On March 22, 2019, counsel for Plaintiff, Ronnie G. Penton and Nancy Hersh1

18
19

(collectively “Movers”) filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff. ECF No. 32 (Mot.).
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 11-5(b), counsel may not withdraw from an action until

20
21

relieved by order of the Court. Civil Local Rule 11-5(b); see also Jariwala v. Napolitano,

22

2011WL 703730, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2011) (“An attorney may not withdraw as counsel

23

except by leave of court.”). The decision to permit counsel to withdraw is within the sound

24

discretion of the Court. United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009). When

25
26
27
28

1

Francois M. Blaudeau, Evan Taylor Rosemore, and Leah F. Walsh also move to withdraw as
counsel for Plaintiff; however, Blaudeau, Rosemore, and Walsh have not made an appearance in
the instant Plaintiff’s case and are not on the docket.
1
Case No. 18-CV-02232-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

1

addressing a motion to withdraw, “the consent of the client is not dispositive.” Robinson v.

2

Delgado, 2010 WL 3259384, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2010); DeLeon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,

3

2010 WL 3565188, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2010). Rather, the court must consider factors such

4

as the reason counsel seeks to withdraw, the possible prejudice caused to the litigants, and the

5

extent to which withdrawal may delay resolution of the case. Id.

6

Civil Local Rule 11-4(a)(1) requires attorneys practicing in this district to “comply with

7

the standards of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of California.” Rule 3-

8

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

9

withdrawal as counsel. Under that rule, before withdrawing for any reason, an attorney must take
“reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

giving due notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, complying with

12

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

13

The Court finds that Movers have not met these standards. First, Movers have not given

14

their reason for seeking to withdraw as counsel. Second, the Court finds possible prejudice to the

15

Plaintiff. Although Movers notified Plaintiff of their intent to withdraw as her counsel of record,

16

and Plaintiff notified Movers of her intent to retain substitute counsel to continue her

17

representation, Plaintiff has yet to locate her substitute counsel. Mot. ¶¶ 6–9. The Court questions

18

whether Movers have given Plaintiff adequate time for employment of other counsel. The only

19

timeline that Movers provide is that on March 5, 2019, March 13, 2019, and March 15, 2019,

20

Movers had telephone conversations with Plaintiff communicating her rights and advising that

21

Movers would be filing a motion to withdraw from Plaintiff’s case. Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff has not yet

22

obtained substitute counsel nor has Plaintiff confirmed that she would represent herself as a pro se

23

litigant in this action.

24

The Court also finds that granting Movers’ motion to withdraw as counsel at this stage

25

would pose possible prejudice to Plaintiff and Defendant and may delay resolution of the case.

26

Defendant filed a limited opposition to note that it does not oppose the Movers’ motion, “provided

27

that it does not delay the current case schedule.” ECF No. 34 (“Opp’n”). Defendant reiterates that

28

2
Case No. 18-CV-02232-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

1

“[f]act discovery closes on May 3, 2019, and [Defendant] very much wants to abide by this

2

deadline and to complete all fact discovery by that date.” See id. Movers suggest that any

3

prejudice would be alleviated by Movers’ continued representation of Plaintiff in the sole and

4

limited capacity of forwarding all filed documentation to Plaintiff, until another attorney can enroll

5

on Plaintiff’s behalf. See Mot. ¶ 9. The Court finds that this does not cure the possible prejudice to

6

Plaintiff and Defendant or alleviate any burdens on the case schedule, particularly the May 3, 2019

7

fact discovery deadline. The Court is concerned that granting Movers’ motion to withdrawal as

8

counsel, without substitute counsel available or without notice from the Plaintiff that she would

9

like to continue pro se, will cause unnecessary delays in the case.

10

Thus, the Court DENIES Movers’ motion to withdraw as counsel without prejudice.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Plaintiff shall obtain new counsel and move to substitute, or file a notice that she would like to

12

continue pro se, within 21 days. At that time, Movers may renew their motion to withdraw as

13

counsel. The case schedule, including the May 3, 2019 close of fact discovery, remains as set.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18

Dated: April 9, 2019
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
Case No. 18-CV-02232-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE