Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05482/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05482-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRI ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF HAYWARD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05482-KAW 

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL; MOTION 

TO CONTINUE OPPOSITION 

DEADLINE

Re: Dkt. No. 55, 56

Steven C. Finley moves to withdraw as Plaintiff's counsel. Defendants oppose the motion, 

which the Court deems suitable for disposition without hearing pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-

1(b). Mr. Finley has also filed an administrative motion to extend the deadline for Plaintiff's 

opposition to Defendants' summary judgment motion. Having considered the papers filed by the 

parties and the relevant legal authority, the Court GRANTS the motion to withdraw for the 

reasons set forth below. The motion for an extension of the opposition deadline is 

TERMINATED AS MOOT, given that Mr. Finley filed the opposition by the September 10 

deadline.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Terri Adams, currently represented by Steven C. Finley, commenced the abovecaptioned case on December 16, 2014. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) Dispositive motions are to be heard 

by no later than October 1, 2015, and trial is set to commence on December 8, 2015. (March 20, 

2015 Order at 7, Dkt. No. 20.)

On June 11, 2015, the parties completed early neutral evaluation, but the case did not 

settle. (Certification of ENE, Dkt. No. 38.) On July 23, 2015, Mr. Finley filed a motion to 

withdraw. (Mot. to Withdraw, Dkt. No. 40.) After the Court denied the motion without prejudice, 

Case 4:14-cv-05482-KAW Document 62 Filed 09/11/15 Page 1 of 5
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

Mr. Finley filed a renewed motion on August 31, 2015, along with an administrative motion to 

extend the deadline for Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' summary judgment motion.

1

 (Mot. to 

Withdraw, Dkt. No. 55; Mot. for Extension, Dkt. No. 56.) The same day, Defendants filed their 

opposition to the motion to withdraw. (Defs.' Opp'n, Dkt. No. 58.) Consistent with the briefing 

schedule set by the Court at the case management conference held on August 25, 2015, Plaintiff 

did not file a reply.

II. 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." The rule further provides that:

When withdrawal by an attorney from an action is not accompanied by 

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

pro se, leave to withdraw may be subject to the condition that papers may continue 

to be served on counsel for forwarding purposes, unless and until the client appears 

by other counsel or pro se. When this condition is imposed, counsel must notify the 

party of this condition. Any filed consent by the party to counsel's withdrawal 

under these circumstances must include acknowledgment of this condition.

Civil L.R. 11-5(b).

Withdrawal is governed by the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Nehad v. 

Mukasey, 535 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying California Rules of Professional Conduct to 

withdrawal by attorney). California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C) sets forth several 

grounds under which an attorney may request permission to withdraw. Counsel may withdraw 

from representation in any matter in which the client "breaches an agreement or obligation to the 

member as to expenses or fees," has made it "unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out 

the employment effectively," or "knowingly and freely assents to termination of the employment." 

Cal. Rules of Prof'l Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d), (f) & (C)(5). The court has discretion to grant or 

deny a motion to withdraw, and it can exercise that discretion, and decide to deny such a motion, 

"where such withdrawal would work an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding." Gong 

v. City of Alameda, No. 03-5495 THE, 2008 WL 160964, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008) (citation

 

1 On August 28, 2015, Plaintiff, acting on her own, filed copies of emails between her and counsel

regarding this case. Emails, Dkt. No. 53; Finley Decl. ¶ 5, Dkt. No. 55-1.

Case 4:14-cv-05482-KAW Document 62 Filed 09/11/15 Page 2 of 5
3

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

and quotations omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Mr. Finley moves to withdraw on the grounds that Plaintiff's conduct has rendered it 

unreasonably difficult to carry out the representation, Plaintiff has breached an agreement 

regarding payment of expenses, and Plaintiff has requested and consented to termination of the 

representation. (Mot. at 1.)

In opposition, Defendants concede that Plaintiff "seems like a difficult person to work 

with" but nonetheless argue that Mr. Finley's motion should be denied because any delay will 

result in prejudice and because Plaintiff lacks the expertise necessary to prosecute this case 

through trial. (Defs.' Opp'n at 2.) These arguments are unpersuasive. Defendants have not 

offered anything in support of their assertion that delay will cause them prejudice. Granting the 

instant motion does not change what work has to be done; it merely changes when that work has 

to be done. That alone does not prejudice the City. Furthermore, the Court is sensitive to 

Defendants' preference to litigate this case against a represented, rather than pro se, plaintiff. It is, 

however, Plaintiff's decision to proceed in this action pro se or to secure replacement counsel.

In this case, Mr. Finley has submitted a declaration in which he states, among other things,

that Plaintiff is in breach of an agreement to pay expenses and that Plaintiff has requested that he 

withdraw as counsel. (Finley Decl. ¶¶ 6(1), 6(3), Dkt. No. 55-1.) This satisfies California Rule of 

Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(f) and 3-700(C)(5).

Additionally, Mr. Finley has, with Plaintiff's help, shown that Plaintiff's conduct has 

rendered it unreasonably difficult to carry out the representation. On August 28, 2015, Plaintiff, 

acting on her own, filed five emails between her and Mr. Finley, which "stat[e] the reasons why 

Plaintiff Terri Adams is requesting Attorney Steven Finley to Withdraw as Counsel." (Emails; 

Finley Decl. ¶ 5.) In one email, Plaintiff writes:

[A]s per our conversation today I requested that you obey the judge's request to resubmit your motion to withdraw and fully disclose the reasons for the motion. 

Please continue your scheduled depositions for officers Eakin and Mills with 

Nguyen and colten to follow asap and please don't forget that this is my case and 

that for the remainder of the time being please respect my wishes and have all four 

of the officers deposed and ready for trial before our next hearing, thank you no one 

Case 4:14-cv-05482-KAW Document 62 Filed 09/11/15 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

is to be left out I just want to be clear on that

1. that you edited/modified a key piece of evidence in my case.

2. that you are working with the defense in de-railing my case.

3.you are trying to let a guilty officer who is a party this action out of the lawsuit.

4. I have lost confidence in your ability to represent me.

5.I don't feel that you have my best interest at heart.

6. you have not provided an adequate representation of my case to this date.

(Id. at 5 (errors in original).) This correspondence reflects a complete breakdown of the attorneyclient relationship, which justifies permitting Mr. Finley to withdraw as counsel.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Finley's motion to withdraw as counsel is GRANTED 

on the following conditions: (1) Mr. Finley shall continue to serve Plaintiff with all papers filed in 

this action until (a) Plaintiff files a notice of intent to proceed pro se or (b) her replacement 

counsel files a notice of appearance, (2) Mr. Finley shall file proof of such service with the Court, 

(3) Mr. Finley shall obtain a statement from Plaintiff indicating her acknowledgment of the

condition regarding service of Court papers, in accordance with Civil L.R. 11-5(b). 

Mr. Finley's motion to extend the deadline for Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' motion 

for summary judgment is TERMINATED AS MOOT. All currently scheduled hearings, pretrial 

dates, and trial dates are VACATED. By no later than October 30, 2015, Plaintiff shall file a 

notice of intent to proceed pro se, or, if she obtains replacement counsel, her new attorney shall 

file a notice of appearance. The Court will hold a further case management conference on 

November 17, 2015, and the parties shall, if possible, file a joint case management conference 

statement by no later than November 10, 2015. If the parties are unable to submit a joint 

statement because of Plaintiff's pro se status, they are to file separate statements. At the case 

management conference, the Court will set a new hearing date for Defendants' summary judgment 

motion. If Plaintiff wishes to seek an extension of the October 30, 2015 deadline, she must file a 

motion indicating the reason for the request, along with a declaration listing the names and contact 

information of the attorneys she has contacted as part of her efforts to secure replacement counsel. 

If Plaintiff chooses to proceed pro se, she must follow all of the rules of this Court and the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. Her case management statement should comply with the Standing 

Case 4:14-cv-05482-KAW Document 62 Filed 09/11/15 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California, available at http://www.cand.uscourts.

gov/kaworders.

Mr. Finley shall serve Plaintiff with a copy of this order, the Court's Handbook for Pro Se 

Litigants, and the pamphlet for the Federal Pro Bono Project's Legal Help Center. He shall also 

file proof of such service with the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 09/11/2015

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:14-cv-05482-KAW Document 62 Filed 09/11/15 Page 5 of 5