Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-02932/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-02932-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

GILBERTO LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAYER HEALTHCARE 

PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-02932-HSG 

ORDER DISMISSING THE CASE FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 

COUNSEL’S MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY

Re: Dkt. No. 33

I. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiffs Tatsiana DeRosa, Tamara Tyler, Gilberto Lopez, and Bonnie Wheeler filed this 

action in California Superior Court on April 24, 2019. Dkt. No. 1. Defendants removed the action 

on May 28, 2019, on the basis of diversity. Id. On October 24, 2019, Plaintiffs DeRosa, Tyler, 

and Wheeler dismissed all their claims against Defendants with prejudice. Dkt. No. 34. Only 

Plaintiff Lopez remains. 

Plaintiff’s counsel, Levi M. Plesset of Milstein Jackson Fairchild & Wade, LLP, moved to 

withdraw as Plaintiff Lopez’s attorney on October 23, 2019. Dkt. No. 33. Counsel first notified 

Plaintiff Lopez of his intent to withdraw on October 2, 2019, and again on October 16, 2019. Id.

The Court set a hearing on this motion for December 5, 2019, and directed counsel to inform 

Plaintiff Lopez that he should appear at the hearing if he opposed counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

Dkt. No. 38. Plaintiff Lopez did not appear at the hearing. Counsel represented to the Court that 

he served the Court’s order directing Plaintiff Lopez to appear, but he has not received any 

response or communications from Plaintiff. The Court has no way of verifying whether Plaintiff 

Lopez intends to continue prosecuting this case, as there has been no communication from Mr. 

Lopez either to his counsel or the Court in at least two months (if not longer). 

Case 4:19-cv-02932-HSG Document 52 Filed 12/16/19 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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that where a “plaintiff fails to prosecute or 

to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any 

claim against it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Court may also sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of 

prosecution. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). The Court finds that Plaintiff 

Lopez has demonstrated that he is unable or unwilling to adequately prosecute this case. 

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action as to Plaintiff Lopez WITHOUT PREJUDICE

under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. 

II. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY (DKT. NO. 33)

The Court next addresses counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney for Plaintiff Lopez. 

Dkt. No. 33. Counsel represents that he has “repeatedly called and sent correspondence to 

communicate with Plaintiff,” but Plaintiff Lopez has “shut down any meaningful attorney-client 

interaction.” Id. Counsel notified Plaintiff on two occasions of his intention to withdraw. Id. At

the December 5, 2019 hearing, counsel represented that he has not received a response from 

Plaintiff Lopez. Because Plaintiff Lopez did not appear at the hearing, it is unclear to the Court 

whether Plaintiff Lopez opposes the motion. 

In this district, “[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.” Civil L.R. 11-5(a). Moreover, “[w]hen 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.” Civil L.R. 11-5(b).

Withdrawal is also 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, permissive withdrawal may be granted only by leave of the 

Court. CA ST RPC, Rule 3-700(A)(1). The rules provide for permissive withdrawal on various 

grounds. Id., Rule 3-700(C)(1). But an attorney may not withdraw before he or she “has taken 

reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including 

Case 4:19-cv-02932-HSG Document 52 Filed 12/16/19 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

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.” Id., Rule 3-700(A)(2); see also id., 

Rule 3-700(D) (regarding the refund of fees and the release of property and papers).

More broadly, courts assessing a motion to withdraw engage in a balancing of the equities, 

considering such factors as why counsel seeks to withdraw and whether permitting withdrawal 

may prejudice other litigants, harm the administration of justice, or delay the case’s resolution. 

See Robinson v. Delgado, No. CV 02-1538 NJV, 2010 WL 3259384, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 

2010) (citing cases).

The Court finds that Civil Local Rule 11-5(a) is satisfied here. Plaintiff’s counsel filed the 

motion almost two months ago and gave Plaintiff Lopez advance notice of withdrawal weeks 

before the filing of the motion. See Dkt. No. 33. Based upon the discussion at the hearing, the 

Court is persuaded that Plaintiff’s counsel filed the motion with a good faith belief that there is 

good cause for withdrawal. See CA ST RPC, Rule 3-700(C)(6). Accordingly, the Court finds in 

the exercise of its discretion that withdrawal is warranted. See Gong v. City of Alameda, No. C 

03-05495 THE, 2008 WL 160964, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008). The Court GRANTS the 

motion to withdraw as counsel.

III. CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney. See Dkt. No. 33. 

Further, the Court DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE with respect to Plaintiff

Lopez for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The Clerk shall close the file. Plaintiff Lopez’s 

former counsel is directed to forward this order to him. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

12/16/2019

Case 4:19-cv-02932-HSG Document 52 Filed 12/16/19 Page 3 of 3