- 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GLORIA DAVIS, Case No. 19-cv-05866-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 30 10 KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Pending before the Court is a motion to withdraw as counsel by Jasmine Mines, attorney 14 for Plaintiff Gloria J. Davis. Dkt. No. 30. Ms. Mines appeared in this case as counsel of record on 15 August 28, 2020. See Dkt. No. 27. Despite this appearance, Ms. Mines states that Plaintiff only 16 hired her “pursuant to a Limited Scope Representation agreement to represent her at the Initial 17 Case Management Conference” on September 8, 2020. See Dkt. No. 56 at 1. Ms. Mines also 18 agreed that she would review the case record. Id. Having done so, she explained to Plaintiff that 19 she could not represent Plaintiff further unless Ms. Mines was able to conduct a more fulsome 20 investigation into the facts and file an amended the complaint. Id. Given the costs associated with 21 doing so, Ms. Mines and Plaintiff agreed that Ms. Mines should withdraw as counsel. See id. at 2. 22 Plaintiff signed the motion to withdraw. Id. Based on the relevant legal authority, the papers, and 23 the representations made during the case management conference, the Court GRANTS the 24 motion. 25 I. LEGAL STANDARD 26 In this District, “[c]ounsel may not withdraw from an action until relieved by order of 27 Court after written notice has been given reasonably in advance to the client and to all other 1 attorney from an action is not accompanied by simultaneous appearance of substitute counsel or 2 agreement of the party to appear pro se, leave to withdraw may be subject to the condition that 3 papers may continue to be served on counsel for forwarding purposes, unless and until the client 4 appears by other counsel or pro se.” Civil L.R. 11-5(b). 5 Withdrawal is also governed by the California Rules of Professional Conduct. See j2 6 Glob. Commc’ns, Inc. v. Blue Jay, Inc., No. C 08-4254 PJH, 2009 WL 464768, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 7 Feb. 24, 2009)); see also Civil L.R. 11-4(a)(1) (requiring compliance with the California Rules of 8 Professional Conduct). Under these rules, permissive withdrawal may only be granted by leave of 9 the Court. CA ST RPC, Rule 3-700(A)(1). The professional rules provide for permissive 10 withdrawal on various grounds, including when “[t]he client knowingly and freely assents to 11 termination of the employment” or . Id., Rule 3-700(C)(5). However, an attorney may not 12 withdraw before he or she “has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to 13 the rights of the client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for employment of 14 other counsel, complying with rule 3-700(D), and complying with applicable laws and rules.” Id., 15 Rule 3-700(A)(2); see also id., Rule 3-700(D) (regarding the refund of fees and the release of 16 property and papers). 17 Finally, courts assessing withdrawal balance the equities, considering such factors as why 18 counsel seeks to withdraw and whether permitting withdrawal may prejudice other litigants, harm 19 the administration of justice, or delay the case’s resolution. See Robinson v. Delgado, No. CV 02- 20 1538 NJV, 2010 WL 3259384, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2010) (citing cases). 21 II. DISCUSSION 22 Here, the Court finds that Civil Local Rule 11-5(a) is satisfied because the parties had 23 reasonable advance notice of the withdrawal. In particular, Plaintiff’s counsel only entered into a 24 limited scope representation agreement with Plaintiff to represent her at the September 8 case 25 management conference. See Dkt. No. 30 at 1–2. Plaintiff’s counsel conferred with Defendant to 26 prepare the joint case management statement, and told all parties during the September 8 hearing 27 of her intention to withdraw from the case moving forward. See Dkt. No. 31. The filing of the 1 Rule 3-700(C)(5). The motion explains that both Ms. Mines and Plaintiff “agreed that it would be 2 in their best interest for [Ms. Mines] to file her instant motion, and [Plaintiff] has granted her 3 consent.” Dkt. No. 30 at 2. Plaintiff also signed the motion. Id. The Court finds that permitting 4 withdrawal is just, while imposing certain conditions (described below) to minimize delay and 5 prejudice. See Robinson, 2010 WL 3259384, at *2 (discussing equities). All told, the Court finds 6 in the exercise of its discretion that withdrawal is warranted. See Gong v. City of Alameda, No. C 7 03-05495, 2008 WL 160964, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008). 8 If necessary, Plaintiff may appear pro se in federal court. But to minimize any potential 9 prejudice to Plaintiff, the Court provides Plaintiff four weeks to obtain new counsel and stays all 10 deadlines in the interim. During this period, the Court directs Ms. Mines to accept service of 11 papers for forwarding to Plaintiff. See Civil L.R. 11-5(b). And if Plaintiff is unable to obtain 12 counsel by October 20, 2020, she will proceed in this action pro se. In that event, Plaintiff must: 13 (1) file a short statement with the Court on October 20, 2020, indicating that she was unable to 14 retain counsel; and (2) confirm her contact information with the Court, so that she may be served 15 as an individual going forward. The Court further SETS a telephonic case management 16 conference on October 27, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. All parties, counsel, and members of the public and 17 press may use the following dial-in information below to access the conference line: 18 Dial In: 888-808-6929 19 Access Code: 6064255 20 The Court cautions all parties that the Court expects to set a case schedule on October 27, and for 21 the case to move forward efficiently, regardless of whether Plaintiff obtains new counsel or 22 proceeds pro se. 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 || 1. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to withdraw as counsel, subject to the 3 || foregoing conditions. 4 IT ISSO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: 9/23/2020 ° anwoen S. GILLIAM, JR. / 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 a 12 © 15 16 it 4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Document Info
Docket Number: 4:19-cv-05866
Filed Date: 9/23/2020
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/20/2024