Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04937/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04937-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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 QUINTERO,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. 

SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO 

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB 

FORMERLY KNOWN AS WORLD 

SAVINGS BANK, FSB,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-04937-JSC 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW

Dkt. No. 45

Presently before the Court is the motion of the Mellen Law Firm to withdraw as counsel of 

record for Plaintiff Robert Quintero. (Dkt. No. 45.) Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells 

Fargo”) filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw. (Dkt. No. 

46.) In response to the orders of the Court (Dkt. Nos. 47, 49), and in support of its motion, the 

Mellen Law Firm has filed a declaration setting forth the grounds for withdrawal. (Dkt. No. 50.) 

Plaintiff has since stipulated to the Mellen Law Firm’s withdrawal and has represented that he will 

proceed in this matter pro se until he retains substitute counsel. (Dkt. No. 60.) 

As set forth in the Court’s prior order, the decision to permit withdrawal of counsel is 

within the trial court’s discretion. See United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 

2009); Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, Inc., 694 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1982). Courts 

ruling on motions to withdraw have considered, among other things, “(1) the reasons why 

withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm 

withdrawal may cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will 

delay the resolution of the case.” Irwin v. Mascott, No. 97-4737, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28264, at 

*3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2004). In this District, courts also consider the standards of professional 

conduct required of members of the State Bar of California when determining whether counsel 

Case 3:13-cv-04937-JSC Document 62 Filed 03/25/15 Page 1 of 3
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

may withdraw representation. See, e.g., U.A. Local 342 Joint Labor-Mgmt. Comm. v. So. City 

Refrigeration, Inc., No. C-09-3219 JCS, 2010 WL 1293522, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2010); Cal. 

Native Plant Soc’y v. U.S. EPA, No. C 06-3604 PJH, 2008 WL 4911162, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 

2008). Under the California Rules of Professional Conduct, an attorney may request permission to 

withdraw if the client “breaches an agreement or obligation to the member as to expenses or fees” 

or on the basis of “conduct [that] renders it unreasonably difficult for the [attorney] to carry out 

the employment effectively.” Cal. Rule of Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d), (f). However, 

“withdrawal is only proper if the client’s interest will not be unduly prejudiced or delayed.” 

McClintic, 2014 WL 51151, at *2 (citation omitted). 

Here, Matthew Mellen of the Mellen Law Firm has filed a sworn declaration noting that 

“Mellen Law Firm and Plaintiff have reached an intractable disagreement over [ ] attorneys’ fees, 

which resulted in an irretrievable breakdown of the relationship which prevents Mellen Law Firm 

from being able to represent Plaintiff. It is also true that Plaintiff does not wish to incur any 

additional attorneys’ fees.” (Dkt. No. 50 ¶ 4.) These reasons support a finding of good cause to 

grant Plaintiff’s counsel leave to withdraw representation. Furthermore, given the procedural 

posture of this case, there will be no prejudice to Plaintiff from his counsel’s withdrawal. In 

particular, under the terms of the parties’ conditional settlement, Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss the 

action if Defendant offers an acceptable loan modification. (See id. ¶ 7.) This litigation has been 

stayed while Defendant conducts its review, which is ongoing. (Id.) Although the parties indicate 

that the conditional settlement is unlikely to resolve this matter such that further litigation will be

necessary, there are no deadlines yet in place—certainly none looming near that might need to be 

extended. In other words, counsel is not leaving Plaintiff in a lurch with fast-approaching 

deadlines. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to believe that granting the Mellen Law 

Firm’s motion to withdraw might otherwise prejudice Plaintiff or delay this action. Indeed, 

Plaintiff stipulates to the Mellen Law Firm’s withdrawal and will proceed pro se until he has 

acquired funding to retain substitute counsel. (Dkt. No. 60 at 1.) Thus, each of the factors 

addressed in Irwin support withdrawal. Irwin, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28264, at *3.

Accordingly, the Mellen Law Firm’s motion to withdraw is hereby GRANTED. The Case 

Case 3:13-cv-04937-JSC Document 62 Filed 03/25/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Management Conference previously set for March 26, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. will proceed as 

scheduled, with counsel for Defendant appearing by telephone and Plaintiff appearing pro se.

This Order disposes of Docket No. 45.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2015

______________________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04937-JSC Document 62 Filed 03/25/15 Page 3 of 3