Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01919/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01919-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:0206 FLSA: Minimum Wage

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN METZGER and KRISTINA

METZGER, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 15cv1919-GPC(KSC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

COUNSEL’S MOTION TO

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND

DENYING MOTION FOR

ATTORNEYS’ LIEN

[Dkt. Nos. 24, 25.]

v.

IMEDEX, INC., a corporation,

Defendant.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel for

Plaintiffs John Metzger and Kristina Metzger. (Dkt. No. 24.) Plaintiffs’ counsel also

filed a motion for attorneys’ lien to recover costs. (Dkt. No. 25.) No opposition has

been filed. Based on the reasoning below, the Court GRANTS counsel for Plaintiffs’

motion to withdraw as counsel and DENIES their motion for attorneys’ lien to recover

costs. 

Discussion

AMartin Law, PC and San Diego County Law Offices, counsel of record for

Plaintiffs move to withdraw as counsel based on one or more grounds specified in the

California Code of Professional Responsibility and the American Bar Association

Model Rules of Professional Conduct. (Dkt. No. 24, David Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.) 

“An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” Darby v.

- 1 - [15cv1919-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:15-cv-01919-GPC-KSC Document 28 Filed 10/04/16 Page 1 of 5
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

City of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992). The trial court has

discretion whether to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw in a civil case. 

See La Grand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998); Stewart v. Boeing Co.,

No. CV 12-5621 RSWL(AGRx), 2013 WL 3168269, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2013). 

Courts should consider the following factors when ruling upon a motion to withdraw

as counsel: (1) the reasons why withdrawal issought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may

cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of

justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case. 

Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc., No. C12-0991JLR, 2014 WL 556010, at *4 (W.D.

Wash. Feb. 12, 2014); Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. C09-01643 SBA, 2010

WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010). Local Civil Rule 83.3(f)(3) also

provides: 

Withdrawals. (a) A notice of motion to withdraw as attorney of record

must be served on the adverse party and on the moving attorney's

client. (b) A declaration pertaining to such service must be filed. 

Failure to make service as required by this section or to file the

required declaration of service will result in a denial of the motion.

Local Civil R. 83.3(f)(3). Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a certificate of service which

indicatesthat the motion wasserved on their client and to opposing counsel. (Dkt. No.

24 at 5-6.) 

Counsel seek to withdraw as counsel based on one or more grounds specified in

the California Code of Professional Responsibility and the American Bar Association

Model Rules of Professional Conduct. No party has opposed the motion to withdraw

so no prejudice has been shown. The case is in its early stages as a case management

conference has not yet been held. After a review of the factors to consider on a motion

to withdraw as counsel, the Court concludes that withdrawal is warranted. Based on

the above, the Court GRANTS counsel for Plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw as counsel. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel also filed a motion for an attorneys’ lien to recover costs.

Plaintiffs entered into an “Attorney Client Contingency Fee Agreement” with Travis

Jang-Busby and his firm, San Diego County Law Offices and Alisa Martin and her

- 2 - [15cv1919-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:15-cv-01919-GPC-KSC Document 28 Filed 10/04/16 Page 2 of 5
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

firm, Amartin Law APC. The Agreement provides,

Section 10. ATTORNEYS, individually and collectively, have the

absolute right to withdraw from the representation of CLIENT upon

giving CLIENT reasonable notice to secure other counsel. Instancesin

which ATTORNEYS will withdraw would include, without limitation:

(a) in the event evidence discloses the claim or suit lacks merit, or is

economically unfeasible to pursue, or that any judgment or award will

be uncollectible, or (b) upon CLIENT’s non-cooperation or material

breach of this Agreement.

Section 9. If employment of ATTORNEYS is terminated prior to

settlement or judgment and CLIENT chooses to continue to pursue the

case, ATTORNEYS shall be compensated for services rendered and

reasonable fees shall be determined to be the greater of (a) a fixed

hourly rate of $650.00 per hour for attorneys and $125.00 per hour for

paralegal services rendered to the date of termination and for winding

up and transferring CLIENT’s files or (b) a percentage of the total

amount ultimately recovered by CLIENT in connection with the

matters for which ATTORNEYS were retained, according to the

agreed contingency fee of 40% of any recovery. Any dispute between

ATTORNEYS and CLIENT as to the reasonable value of services

following discharge or withdrawal shall be arbitrated by a neutral

arbitrator selected by the presiding judge of the Superior Court of San

Diego County.

(Dkt. No. 25 at 2-3.) Counsel seek reimbursement of $3,276 in costs for mediation,

parking, research/contract labor and copy and printing costs. (Dkt. No. 25, David Decl.

¶ 4.) 

“Attorney’s liens may be enforced in federal actions” and are analyzed under

state law. Doherty v. City of Alameda, No. 09-4961, 2011 WL 2429364, at *2 (N.D.

Cal. June 13, 2011). “Generally, attorney’s liens are a charge used to secure attorney

fees and expenses incurred ‘out of proceeds of a prospective judgment.’” Id. (quoting

Fletcher v. Davis, 33 Cal. 4th 61, 66 (2004)). 

Plaintiffs’ counsel argue and the Court agrees that an attorney’s lien must

comply with California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-300, 

A member shall not enter into a business transaction with a client; or

knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security, or other

pecuniary interest adverse to a client, unless each of the following

requirements has been satisfied:

(A) The transaction or acquisition and its terms are fair and reasonable

to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the

client in a manner which should reasonably have been understood by

the client; and

(B) The client is advised in writing that the client may seek the advice

of an independent lawyer of the client's choice and is given a

- 3 - [15cv1919-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:15-cv-01919-GPC-KSC Document 28 Filed 10/04/16 Page 3 of 5
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

reasonable opportunity to seek that advice; and

(C) The client thereafter consents in writing to the terms of the

transaction or the terms of the acquisition.

Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-300. 

“Requiring the client’s informed written consent has the additional benefit of

ensuring that the client truly agrees to the creation of the lien and its scope, thus

making it less likely that a disagreement will arise that could lead to litigation or other

action adverse to the client, and also impressing upon the client the importance of his

or her consent and of the right to withhold it.” Fletcher, 33 Cal. 4th at 69.

Here, the language of the Agreement does not specifically provide for an

attorney’s lien on any future recovery but only provides the methods by which

attorneys’ fees will be compensated. Section 9 of the Agreement does not establish

1

a lien on any recovery and therefore, Plaintiffs’ counsel did not obtain their clients

informed written consent because the Agreement did not fully disclose to Plaintiffs in

a manner which Plaintiffs reasonably should have understood that their attorney would

place a lien on any future recovery. Second, the Agreement does not advise that

Plaintiffs may seek the advice of an independent lawyer. See In re Segovia, 387 B.R.

773, 784 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (lien formdid not comply with Rule 3-300 because it did not

inform clients they may consult with an independent attorney concerning the lien). 

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to comply with Rule 3-300. Thus, the Court

concludes that the Agreement does not create a lien and even it did create a lien, it

would not have been an enforceable lien. See Fletcher, 33 Cal. 4th at 71-72 (lien not

enforceable because attorney failed to comply with Rule 3-300). Accordingly, the

Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ counsels’ motion for attorneys’ lien to recover costs. 

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court GRANT Plaintiffs’ counsels’ motion to withdraw

This provision also provides that the attorneys will be compensated only if 1

Plaintiffs chooses to pursue the case. At this point, it is not clear whether Plaintiffs will

pursue the case while proceeding pro per. 

- 4 - [15cv1919-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:15-cv-01919-GPC-KSC Document 28 Filed 10/04/16 Page 4 of 5
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

as attorney for Plaintiffs and DENIES their motion for attorneys’ lien to recover costs. 

The Clerk of Clerk shall indicate on the docket that Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se

with the following address: John and Kristina Metzger, 6432 Olea Lane, #104,

Carlsbad, CA 92011. 

The hearing date set for October 7, 2016 shall be vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 4, 2016

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

cc:

John and Kristina Metzger

6432 Olea Lane, #104

Carlsbad, CA 92011

- 5 - [15cv1919-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:15-cv-01919-GPC-KSC Document 28 Filed 10/04/16 Page 5 of 5