Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01648/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01648-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:9659 CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT E. RENZEL TRUST, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALFREDO TORRES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01648-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

WITHRAW AS COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. No. 146

Defendant Gary Tran has been represented in this litigation by Jonathan Do, Esq., of 

Fusion Law, APC. On October 27, 2016, Mr. Do filed a notice of substitution of attorney, Dkt. 

No. 135, which made clear that he sought to no longer represent his client, Defendant Gary Tran. 

Pursuant to the Court’s order, Dkt. No. 145, Mr. Do filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Mr. 

Tran, Dkt. No. 146. On December 1, 2016, the Court held an in camera hearing on the motion. 

Based on the applicable legal authority and the representations made at the hearing, the Court 

GRANTS the motion as ordered during the in camera hearing.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

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.” Withdrawal is governed by the California Rules of 

Professional Conduct. See j2 Glob. Commc’ns, Inc. v. Blue Jay, Inc., No. C 08-4254PJH, 2009 

WL 464768, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2009)). Under these rules, an attorney may only request 

permission to withdraw on a limited number of grounds, of which two are relevant here. See CA 

ST RPC Rule 3-700(C). First, a request for withdrawal is permitted where “[t]he client knowingly 

and freely assents to termination of employment.” Id., Rule 3-700(C)(5). In addition, a request 

for withdrawal is permitted where the attorney “believes in good faith . . . that the tribunal will 

Case 4:15-cv-01648-HSG Document 150 Filed 12/01/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal.” Id., Rule 3-700(C)(6). The decision to 

grant or deny a motion to withdraw is within the Court’s discretion. Gong v. City of Alameda, No. 

C 03–05495 TEH, 2008 WL 160964, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008).

II. ANALYSIS

Here, Mr. Do has complied with Local Civil Rule 11-5(a). The filing of his motion to 

withdraw provided sufficient notice to the other parties in the case. See Dkt. No. 146. The filing 

includes a “Notice to Client Who Will Be Unrepresented,” which is signed by both Mr. Do and 

Mr. Tran, and clearly communicates that granting the motion will permit Mr. Do to withdraw and 

result in Mr. Tran proceeding pro se. See id. at 3.

Moreover, the Court finds that the filing of this motion was permitted by the California 

Rules of Professional Conduct. First, the motion and accompanying declaration, see id. at 1 and 4, 

as well as the statements of Mr. Tran and Mr. Do at the in camera hearing, establish that Mr. Tran 

has “knowingly and freely assent[ed]” to Mr. Do’s termination of employment. See CA RPC Rule 

3-700(C)(5). In addition, based upon the representations made in the in camera proceeding, the 

Court finds that Mr. Do filed the motion with a good faith belief that there is good cause for 

withdrawal. See id., Rule 3-700(C)(6). 

Accordingly, the Court finds in its discretion that Mr. Do’s withdrawal as counsel is 

warranted. See Gong, 2008 WL 160964, at *1.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion to withdraw as counsel, Dkt. 

No. 146, and DENIES AS MOOT the motion to substitute. The Court ORDERS Mr. Do to 

comply with all legal and professional obligations relating to the termination of his employment, 

including Rule 3-700(D) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

12/1/2016

Case 4:15-cv-01648-HSG Document 150 Filed 12/01/16 Page 2 of 2