You're viewing Docket Item 39 from the case Bennett v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case4:13-cv-01693-KAW Document39 Filed08/02/13 Page1 of 3













UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA




ROBERT N. BENNETT,





WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,




Defendants.

Plaintiff,

vs.

Case No.: CV 13-01693 KAW

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
COUNSEL'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW
AS COUNSEL OF RECORD














Presently, Plaintiff Robert N. Bennett is represented by attorney September Joy Katje of

Consumer Litigation Law Center, APC. On May 29, 2013, counsel moved to withdraw. (Dkt. No.

17.) Counsel states that since March 2013, Plaintiff has failed to respond to numerous phone calls,

emails, and letters, even when they involved the pending sale of his subject property. His only

communications with counsel and counsel’s firm are sporadic, and he has demanded that all

communication be conducted via email. Moreover, Plaintiff has not paid counsel attorney and filing

fees, as he is contractually obligated to do. Counsel served copies of her motion on Plaintiff by

certified mail to both his current mailing address and post office box.

Plaintiff did not file an opposition to counsel’s motion to withdraw, but sent his attorney of

record a “Notice of Opposition” stating his intent to file an opposition to the motion to withdraw.

He did not file this document with the Court, but his attorney e-filed it on ECF. (Dkt. No. 33.) At

the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel stated that Plaintiff did not send them any subsequent opposition to

counsel’s motion to withdraw, and Plaintiff did not file any documents with the Court.




t
r
u
o
C


t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D

s
e
t
a
t
S
d
e
t
i
n
U




a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C


f
o




t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



Case4:13-cv-01693-KAW Document39 Filed08/02/13 Page2 of 3



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

The Court held a hearing on the motion on July 18, 2013. September Katje appeared at the

hearing, but Plaintiff did not.

Under Civil Local Rule 11-5(a), “[c]ounsel may not withdraw from an action until relieved

by order of Court after written notice has been given reasonably in advance to the client and to all

other parties who have appeared in the case.” The local rules further provide that if the client does

not consent to the withdrawal and no substitution of counsel is filed, the motion to withdraw shall be

granted on the condition that all papers from the court and from the opposing party shall continue to

be served on that party’s current counsel for forwarding purposes until the client appears by other

counsel or pro se if the client is not a corporate defendant. Civil L.R. 11-5(b).

10

Withdrawal is governed by the California Rules of Professional Conduct. See Nehad v.

11

Mukasey, 535 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying California Rules of Professional Conduct to

12

attorney withdrawal). Under California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C), an attorney may

13

request permission to withdraw if the client breaches an agreement or obligation to its counsel as to

14

expenses or fees, or if the client engages in “other conduct [that] renders it unreasonably difficult for

15

the member to carry out the employment effectively,” such as a client’s failure to communicate with

16

its attorney. Cal. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3-700(C)(1)(d).

17

The Court has discretion regarding whether to grant a motion to withdraw; an attorney’s

18

request to withdraw should be denied “where such withdrawal would work an injustice or cause

19

undue delay in the proceeding.” Gong v. City of Alameda, No. C 03-05495 TEH, 2008 WL 160964,

20

at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008) (no prejudice or undue delay to client where counsel provided

21

sufficient notice of its intent to withdraw and where no trial date had yet been set in the case).

22

The Court finds that good cause exists to grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Counsel has

23

attested that Plaintiff has not paid his legal bills and has not communicated with his attorneys. Both

24

of these are independently valid grounds for withdrawal. Although Plaintiff has been served with

25

counsel’s motion to withdraw, neither he nor Defendants have objected to the motion. There has

26

been no showing that withdrawal would work an injustice or cause undue delay.

27

28







2




t
r
u
o
C


t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D

s
e
t
a
t
S
d
e
t
i
n
U




a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C


f
o




t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

Case4:13-cv-01693-KAW Document39 Filed08/02/13 Page3 of 3



Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. Because Plaintiff has not

consented to the withdrawal and no substitution of counsel has been filed, all papers from the court

and from Defendants shall continue to be served on Plaintiff’s counsel for forwarding purposes until

a substitution of counsel is filed. See Civil L.R. 11-5(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: August 2, 2013





___________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE





3




t
r
u
o
C


t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D

s
e
t
a
t
S
d
e
t
i
n
U




a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C


f
o




t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28