Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00810/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00810-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

KIM E. TOLBERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00810-JD 

ORDER RE MOTION TO WITHDRAW 

AND CONTINUANCE OF DEADLINES

Re: Dkt. Nos. 25, 26

Plaintiff Kim Tolbert filed this employment discrimination lawsuit as a pro se litigant on 

February 18, 2016. Dkt. No. 1. Attorneys from The Scott Law firm (“Counsel”) appeared on her 

behalf shortly thereafter, but now seek to withdraw under Civil Local Rule 11-5(a). See Dkt. Nos. 

15, 25. Defendant City and County of San Francisco (Department of Public Health) does not 

oppose. Dkt. No. 27. The Court finds this matter suitable for decision without oral argument 

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

The Court denies the motion to withdraw because Counsel have failed to comply with 

applicable California rules and the Court’s Local Rules. Counsel represent that the attorney-client 

relationship with Ms. Tolbert has irrevocably broken down and pledge that they will seek no fees 

whatsoever for their work in this matter. Dkt. No. 25-1. But neither the motion nor the 

accompanying declaration from attorney John Scott actually states that Counsel complied with 

Civil Local Rule 11-5(a) and provided “written notice . . . given reasonably in advance to the 

client.” Counsel also notably fail to allege any compliance with the provisions of California Rule 

of Professional Conduct 3-700. Nor do they explain why they should not be subject to the 

conditional withdrawal provisions of Civil Local Rule 11-5(b), given that their papers are “not 

Case 3:16-cv-00810-JD Document 28 Filed 06/03/16 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

accompanied by simultaneous appearance of substitute counsel or agreement of the party to appear 

pro se.” 

If Counsel files a revised motion to withdraw, the Court will require a sworn declaration 

from the lead attorney establishing that plaintiff was notified under Civil Local Rule 11-5(a) and 

(b) and that Counsel complied with all the provisions of California Rule of Professional Conduct 

3-700. The declaration should describe at a high level and without violating attorney-client 

confidentiality the efforts undertaken to obtain Ms. Tolbert’s consent to the withdrawal, and 

certify that those efforts were unsuccessful. If Counsel believe they have compelling reasons for 

being excused from the conditional withdrawal requirements of Civil Local Rule 11-5(b), those 

should also be described in the declaration to the degree consistent with Counsel’s ongoing duties 

to Ms. Tolbert. 

At the parties’ request, and in light of this order, the Court grants the joint stipulation to 

continue case management deadlines. Dkt. No. 26. The amended complaint will be filed July 13, 

2016. The case management conference is moved to July 20, 2016. The Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26 disclosures and case management statement are due a week before the conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00810-JD Document 28 Filed 06/03/16 Page 2 of 2