Regional Medical Center of San Jose v. WH Administrators, Inc ( 2020 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER OF SAN 7 JOSE, Case No. 5:17-cv-03357-EJD 8 Plaintiff, ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING MR. RONALD 9 v. KRAVITZ’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW 10 WH ADMINISTRATORS, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 98 11 Defendants. 12 Mr. Ronald Scott Kravitz, Defendant WH Administrators, Inc.’s attorney, first appeared as 13 counsel of record for Defendant WHA on July 7, 2017. Dkt. 25. For about three years, Mr. 14 Kravitz has been Defendant WHA’s counsel. On May 7, 2020, Mr. Kravitz filed a motion to 15 withdraw as counsel of record for Defendant WH. Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record for 16 Defendant WH Administrators, Inc. (“Mot.”), Dkt. 98. Mr. Kravitz argues that his request to 17 withdraw as counsel is supported by California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b). Id. at 3. 18 Defendant WH has not filed any opposition to Mr. Kravitz’s motion to withdraw. Defendants 19 RHC Management Health & Welfare Trust, RHC Management Co., LLC d/b/a McDonald, 20 Benefit Administrative Systems, LLC, and the Phia Group, LLC do not oppose Mr. Kravitz’s 21 motion to withdraw as counsel. See Dkts. 100, 101, 102. Plaintiff the Regional Medical Center of 22 San Jose has not filed any opposition to Mr. Kravitz’s motion to withdraw. Having considered 23 Mr. Kravitz’s papers, the Court CONDITIONALLY GRANTS Mr. Kravitz’s Motion to 24 Withdraw as Defendant WH’s counsel.1 25 26 1 Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), this Court finds this motion suitable for consideration 27 without oral argument. Case No.: 5:17-cv-03357-EJD 1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 In this district, the conduct of counsel, including the withdrawal of counsel, is governed by 3 the standards of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of California. N.D. 4 Cal. Civ. L.R. 11-4(1). California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16 provides that an attorney 5 may request permission to withdraw if a client is engaged in conduct that makes it unreasonably 6 difficult for the attorney to carry out employment effectively or breaches an agreement or 7 obligation to pay expenses or fees. 8 An attorney must receive leave of court to withdraw as counsel. Darby v. City of 9 Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992). “The decision to grant or deny counsel’s 10 motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial court.” Irwin v. Mascott, 2004 U.S. 11 Dist. LEXIS 28264, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2004). A court ruling upon motions to withdraw as 12 counsel considers: 13 (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of 14 justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case. 15 Id. at *4. 16 II. DISCUSSION 17 A. Counsel Provided Reasonable Written Notice 18 Counsel must give their client and the other parties in the case reasonable advance written 19 notice of the intent to withdraw. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 11-5(a); Cal. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.16(d). 20 Here, Mr. Kravitz has attempted to inform Defendant WHA of his intent to withdraw as 21 counsel, however, his attempts to make contact with Defendant WHA have been unsuccessful. 22 See Declaration of Ronald S. Kravitz (“Kravitz Decl.”) ¶ 3, Dkt. 98-1. He has repeatedly 23 attempted to contact Defendant WHA to inform the client of his need to withdraw and the reasons 24 why. Mot. at 3. Such notifications have been made by phone, email, and certified mail. Id. 25 Defendant WHA has not responded to any of these notifications. See Thus, Mr. Kravitz has given 26 Defendant WHA advance notice of his intent to withdraw. Likewise, the other Parties in this 27 Case No.: 5:17-cv-03357-EJD 1 action have been informed of Mr. Kravitz’s intent to withdraw. See id.; see also Dkts. 100, 101, 2 102. 3 B. There is Good Cause to Withdraw 4 “A client’s failure to pay legal fees . . . may constitute good cause to permit an attorney’s 5 withdrawal from representation of a client.” Fabricant v. Fast Advance Funding, LLC, 2018 WL 6 6927809, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 26, 2018). The breach of an agreement to pay legal fees further 7 justifies withdrawal of counsel. Cal. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.16(b)(5) (permitting an attorney to 8 withdraw if the client materially breaches a term of a fee agreement and the attorney gives the 9 client a reasonable warning after the breach that the attorney will withdraw unless the client 10 fulfills the agreement or performs the obligation). Likewise, a client’s failure to communicate 11 with counsel is good cause for withdrawal of representation. See Hershey v. Berkeley, 2008 WL 12 4723610, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2008) (“Plaintiffs' failure to communicate with their counsel 13 has created a complete breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. This breakdown constitutes 14 good cause for Plaintiffs' counsel to withdraw from this case.”). 15 Here, Defendant WHA has (1) failed to communicate with counsel, which makes it 16 impossible for counsel to effectively represent Defendant WHA and (2) failed to pay its legal fees. 17 As a result, Mr. Kravitz cannot provide adequate or timely responses as required to represent 18 WHA, and is unable to prepare a proper defense in this matter. Mot. at 3. The breakdown and 19 failure to pay fees constitutes good cause for Defendant WHA’s counsel to withdraw from this 20 case. 21 C. Withdrawal Does Not Prejudice Defendant WHA 22 Finally, Defendant WHA will not be prejudiced by withdrawal. There are no pending 23 motions and no pending hearing or trial dates set in this matter. 24 III. CONCLUSION 25 For the foregoing reasons, the Court CONDITIONALLY GRANTS Mr. Kravitz’s 26 motion to withdraw as counsel for Defendant WHA. As noted, prior to filing this motion to 27 Case No.: 5:17-cv-03357-EJD 1 withdraw, Mr. Kravitz left several unreturned telephone messages at Defendant WHA’s last 2 || known telephone number. He also sent Defendant WHA a letter at his last known address but did 3 not receive a reply. Documentation presented by Mr. Kravitz shows that Defendant WHA has not 4 submitted proper taxes, documentation, and other payments with the Franchise Tax Board of 5 Texas and that Defendant WHA has forfeited its right to transact business in Texas. See Kravitz 6 || Decl., Ex. A. This is to say, Defendant WHA seems to no longer be a functioning business. 7 Based on Mr. Kravitz’s motion, declaration, and exhibits, the Court finds that Mr. Kravitz has 8 || made sufficiently diligent efforts to locate his client. Accordingly, Mr. Kravitz’s motion to 9 withdraw is GRANTED with the following conditions: 10 1. Mr. Kravitz shall send by registered mail a copy of this Order to Defendant WHA at its 11 last known address by July 1, 2020 and email a copy of this Order to Defendant WHA 12 at the last known email address (the one listed in Mr. Kravitz’s motion). Mr. Kravitz 5 13 shall file a declaration stating that he has done so on or before July 1, 2020. 14 2. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 11-5(b), all papers in this case may continue to be served 3 15 on Mr. Kravitz for forwarding to Defendant WHA unless and until Defendant WHA 16 appears by other counsel. 3 17 3. Defendant WHA has until July 23, 2020 to obtain new counsel. Because Defendant 18 WHA is a corporate entity, it may not proceed pro se. To ensure that any new counsel 19 has sufficient time to prepare, the status conference set for July 30, 2020 is RESET for 20 August 20, 2020. The status report is now due by August 10, 2020. 21 4. Failure to comply with conditions one or two shall result in the denial of Mr. Kravitz’s 22 motion to withdraw. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: June 24, 2020 EDWARD J. DAVILA 26 United States District Judge Case No.: 5:17-cv-03357-EJD 28 || ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING MR. RONALD KRAVITZ’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW