Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-02200/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-02200-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

Case No. 18-CV-02200-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ANGELIA BRYANT ESLICK,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-CV-02200-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 29

On March 25, 2019, counsel for Plaintiff, Ronnie G. Penton and Nancy Hersh1

(collectively “Movers”) filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff. ECF No. 29 (Mot.). 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 11-5(b), counsel may not withdraw from an action until 

relieved by order of the Court. Civil Local Rule 11-5(b); see also Jariwala v. Napolitano, 

2011WL 703730, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2011) (“An attorney may not withdraw as counsel 

except by leave of court.”). The decision to permit counsel to withdraw is within the sound 

discretion of the Court. United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009). When 

 

1 Francois M. Blaudeau, Evan Taylor Rosemore, and Leah F. Walsh also move to withdraw as 

counsel for Plaintiff; however, Blaudeau, Rosemore, and Walsh have not made an appearance in 

the instant Plaintiff’s case and are not on the docket. 

Case 5:18-cv-02200-LHK Document 32 Filed 04/09/19 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 18-CV-02200-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

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

addressing a motion to withdraw, “the consent of the client is not dispositive.” Robinson v. 

Delgado, 2010 WL 3259384, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2010); DeLeon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 

2010 WL 3565188, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2010). Rather, the court must consider factors such 

as the reason counsel seeks to withdraw, the possible prejudice caused to the litigants, and the 

extent to which withdrawal may delay resolution of the case. Id.

Civil Local Rule 11-4(a)(1) requires attorneys practicing in this district to “comply with 

the standards of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of California.” Rule 3-

700 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California governs an attorney’s

withdrawal as counsel. Under that rule, before withdrawing for any reason, an attorney must 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 of other counsel, complying with

rule 3-700(D), and complying with applicable laws and rules.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(A)(2).

The Court finds that Movers have not met these standards. First, Movers have not given 

their reason for seeking to withdraw as counsel. Second, the Court finds possible prejudice to the 

Plaintiff. Although Movers notified Plaintiff of their intent to withdraw as her counsel of record,

and Plaintiff notified Movers of her intent to retain substitute counsel to continue her 

representation, Plaintiff has yet to locate her substitute counsel. Mot. ¶¶ 6–9. The Court questions 

whether Movers have given Plaintiff adequate time for employment of other counsel. The only 

timeline that Movers provide is that on March 5, 2019, Plaintiff advised of her intent to retain 

other counsel; on March 7, 2019, Movers spoke with Plaintiff and confirmed she was seeking 

another attorney; on March 8, 2019, Movers forwarded Plaintiff a copy of her file; on March 13, 

2019, Movers had “another conversation with Plaintiff wherein it was communicated to her that 

she needed to immediately have her new counsel file a substitution into the record due to the 

existence of scheduling orders”; and on March 15, 2019, Movers sent another correspondence to 

Plaintiff reiterating all prior communication with Plaintiff.” Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff has not yet obtained 

substitute counsel nor has Plaintiff confirmed that she would represent herself as a pro se litigant 

in this action.

Case 5:18-cv-02200-LHK Document 32 Filed 04/09/19 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 18-CV-02200-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

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

The Court also finds that granting Movers’ motion to withdraw as counsel at this stage 

would pose possible prejudice to Plaintiff and Defendant and may delay resolution of the case. 

Defendant filed a limited opposition to note that it does not oppose the Movers’ motion, “provided

that it does not delay the current case schedule.” ECF No. 31 (“Opp’n”). Defendant reiterates that 

“[f]act discovery closes on May 3, 2019, and [Defendant] very much wants to abide by this 

deadline and to complete all fact discovery by that date.” See id. Movers suggest that any 

prejudice would be alleviated by Movers’ continued representation of Plaintiff in the sole and 

limited capacity of forwarding all filed documentation to Plaintiff, until another attorney can enroll 

on Plaintiff’s behalf. See Mot. ¶ 9. The Court finds that this does not cure the possible prejudice to 

Plaintiff and Defendant or alleviate any burdens on the case schedule, particularly the May 3, 2019 

fact discovery deadline. The Court is concerned that granting Movers’ motion to withdrawal as 

counsel, without substitute counsel available or without notice from the Plaintiff that she would 

like to continue pro se, will cause unnecessary delays in the case. 

Thus, the Court DENIES Movers’ motion to withdraw as counsel without prejudice. 

Plaintiff shall obtain new counsel and move to substitute, or file a notice that she would like to 

continue pro se, within 21 days. At that time, Movers may renew their motion to withdraw as 

counsel. The case schedule, including the May 3, 2019 close of fact discovery, remains as set.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:18-cv-02200-LHK Document 32 Filed 04/09/19 Page 3 of 3