United States v. Media Rights Technologies, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 18-cv-05293-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 52 10 MEDIA RIGHTS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Pending before the Court is defense counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record 14 without substitution. Dkt. No. 52 (“Mot.”). The Court finds that this matter is appropriate for 15 disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For 16 the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED. 17 I. DISCUSSION 18 Ms. Betty J. Williams seeks to withdraw as counsel for Defendants because Defendants 19 have “failed and refused to cooperate with counsel” regarding discovery matters and have “failed 20 to timely pay all fees” associated with representation in these and other cases. Mot. at 1. 21 In this district, “[c]ounsel may not withdraw from an action until relieved by order of 22 Court after written notice has been given reasonably in advance to the client and to all other 23 parties who have appeared in the case.” Civ. L.R. 11-5(a). Moreover, “[w]hen withdrawal by an 24 attorney from an action is not accompanied by simultaneous appearance of substitute counsel or 25 agreement of the party to appear pro se, leave to withdraw may be subject to the condition that 26 papers may continue to be served on counsel for forwarding purposes, unless and until the client 27 appears by other counsel or pro se.” Civ. L.R. 11-5(b). 1 Commc’ns, Inc. v. Blue Jay, Inc., No. C 08-4254PJH, 2009 WL 464768, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2 2009). The rules provide for permissive withdrawal on various grounds, including when “[t]he 3 client ... breaches a material term of an agreement with, or obligation, to the lawyer relating to the 4 representation.” CA ST RPC Rule 1.16(b)(5). But an attorney may not withdraw before he or she 5 “has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, 6 such as giving the client sufficient notice to permit the client to retain other counsel, and 7 complying with paragraph (e).” CA ST RPC Rule 1.16(d); see also Rule 1.16(e) (regarding the 8 refund of fees and the release of property and papers). 9 More broadly, courts assessing a motion to withdraw engage in a balancing of the equities, 10 considering such factors as why counsel seeks to withdraw and whether permitting withdrawal 11 may prejudice other litigants, harm the administration of justice, or delay the case’s 12 resolution. See Robinson v. Delgado, No. CV 02-1538 NJV, 2010 WL 3259384, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 13 Aug. 18, 2010) (citing cases). 14 Here, Ms. Williams’s request to withdraw satisfies the applicable local rules. She filed this 15 motion on February 16, 2023, providing both Plaintiff and Defendants reasonable notice of her 16 potential withdrawal. The Court is also persuaded that the California Rules of Professional 17 Conduct permit withdrawal in this instance. Ms. Williams represents in her motion that 18 Defendants have been given written notice of counsel’s request for withdrawal “and have affirmed 19 they are retaining other counsel.” Mot. at 2. Moreover, in balancing the equities, the Court finds 20 that withdrawal is just, and will not cause any undue prejudice or delay. In the exercise of its 21 discretion, the Court thus finds that withdrawal is warranted. The Court directs Ms. Williams to 22 accept service of papers for forwarding to Defendants unless and until Defendants appear by other 23 counsel or pro se. See Civ. L.R. 11-5(b). Ms. Williams must also notify Defendants of this 24 condition. See id. 25 // 26 // 27 // Il. CONCLUSION Accordingly, Ms. Williams’s motion to withdraw as counsel for Defendants 1s 2 GRANTED, subject to the foregoing conditions. 3 4 IT ISSO ORDERED. 5 Dated: 3/15/2023 7 aanwobe S. GILLIAM, JR. / g United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 41 15 16 & it Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28