Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02407/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02407-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 375
Nature of Suit: False Claims Act
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

et al., ex rel. MAX BENNETT, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

BIOTRONIK, INC., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-2407-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

Attorney Charles Kester and Delaney Kester LLP move to be relieved as counsel 

for plaintiff-relator Max Bennett. Defendant Biotronik, Inc. did not file an opposition. Having 

determined the matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing, the court defers ruling on the 

motion pending receipt and review of information submitted for in camera review as ordered 

below. 

The Local Rules of this District require an attorney who would withdraw and leave 

his or her client in propria persona to obtain leave of the court upon a noticed motion. E.D. Cal. 

L.R. 182(d). The Local Rules also provide that withdrawal is governed by the Rule of 

Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California. Id. California Rule of Professional Conduct 

3-700(A)(2) requires an attorney take “reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice 

to the rights of the client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for employment 

Case 2:14-cv-02407-KJM-EFB Document 38 Filed 09/04/15 Page 1 of 4
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 

2

of other counsel, complying with rule 3-700(D) [on release of a client’s papers and property], and 

complying with applicable laws and rules.” The Rules do not allow an attorney to withdraw 

unless, among other reasons, “[t]he client . . . renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to 

carry out the employment effectively, or . . . breaches an agreement or obligation to the member 

as to expenses or fees . . . [or] [t]he member believes in good faith, in a proceeding pending 

before a tribunal, that the tribunal will find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal.” 

Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(C). 

The decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw is within the court’s discretion. 

McNally v. Eye Dog Found. for the Blind, Inc., No. 09-01184, 2011 WL 1087117, at *1 (E.D. 

Cal. Mar. 24, 2011) (citing Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, Inc., 694 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th 

Cir. 1982)). District courts in this circuit have considered several factors when evaluating a 

motion to withdraw, including the reason for withdrawal, prejudice to the client, prejudice to the 

other litigants, harm to the administration of justice, and possible delay. Deal v. Countrywide 

Home Loans, No. 09-01643, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010); CE Resource, 

Inc. v. Magellan Group, LLC, No. 08-02999, 2009 WL 3367489 at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2009); Beard v. 

Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 07-594, 2008 WL 410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008). The 

correct resolution is the one that is equitable in light of the circumstances of the particular case. 

See CE Resources, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (“Ultimately, the court’s ruling must involve a 

balancing of the equities.”). 

Here, Mr. Kester reports that “without hesitation I can represent to the Court that 

the necessary trust and cooperation between attorney and client mutually no longer exists; and 

consequently, Delaney Kester cannot ethically continue to represent Bennett.” Kester Decl. ¶ 2, 

ECF No. 31 (emphasis in original). He also reproduces a paragraph from the fee agreement 

between Delaney Kester and Bennett: 

11. Termination of Attorney-Client Relationship. Client 

understands that if at any point Attorneys determine that it would 

not be prudent to file or continue a lawsuit, or to pursue an appeal 

of a trial court ruling, Attorneys may, at their sole discretion, 

conclude their investigation and/or prosecution of the case(s) 

brought or pursued on Client’s behalf. Client understands that in 

the event that the federal government (or other relevant government 

Case 2:14-cv-02407-KJM-EFB Document 38 Filed 09/04/15 Page 2 of 4
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 

3

agency) elects not to join the whistleblower lawsuit, it is possible 

that Attorneys will seek to withdraw from any lawsuit filed or 

pursued under this Agreement. Client further understands that if at 

such time a complaint already has been filed, then the permission of 

the Court likely will be required for the Attorneys’ withdrawal from 

the case. In such event, Client agrees to consent to the Attorneys’ 

withdrawal from the case, and Client will not be liable to Attorneys 

for legal fees, expenses, or costs incurred in the case. 

Id. at 1–2 (emphasis omitted). Kester reports that despite this promise, Bennett has refused to 

agree to Delaney Kester’s withdrawal. Id. ¶ 4. 

Repeated failures in communication may justify an attorney’s withdrawal. See, 

e.g., Sanchez v. City of Fresno, No. 13-0291, 2013 WL 5274276, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2013) 

(collecting authority to show “[t]he lack of a cooperative relationship between an attorney and his 

client may justify the attorney’s withdrawal”). But Kester’s generalized declaration leaves the 

court without sufficient information to weigh the merits of his motion. This case is also 

somewhat more complicated than most when it comes to attorney withdrawal: “a pro se relator 

cannot prosecute a qui tam action on behalf of the United States . . . .” Stoner v. Santa Clara 

County Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1127 (9th Cir. 2007). If Bennett is unable to find counsel 

within a reasonable time, his case must be dismissed. Id. at 1128. 

The court therefore orders as follows: 

(1) Counsel, Charles Kester, shall immediately serve a copy of this order on Max 

Bennett. 

(2) Mr. Kester shall also submit, in writing and for the court’s in camera review, 

specific reasons he believes withdrawal is necessary. He shall do so within seven days, and shall 

serve the same writing on Max Bennett by the same date, filing proof of service on the court’s 

docket. 

(3) No more than seven days after Mr. Bennett receives Mr. Kester’s specific 

reasons, Mr. Bennett shall submit any response he has for the court’s in camera review. In any 

response, Mr. Bennett shall indicate whether he will continue to prosecute this case if Mr. Kester 

is no longer his attorney, whether he has sought replacement counsel, and if so, what efforts he 

Case 2:14-cv-02407-KJM-EFB Document 38 Filed 09/04/15 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

has taken to find replacement counsel. This response shall be in writing and shall be sent to Mr. 

Kester on the same day it is sent to the court. 

(4) Messrs. Kester and Bennett may submit their reasons and responses to this 

order for in camera review by email to kjmorders@caed.uscourts.gov, and shall not file these 

documents on the docket. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 3, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02407-KJM-EFB Document 38 Filed 09/04/15 Page 4 of 4