Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02128/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02128-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
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

DANIEL ACOSTA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FRITO-LAY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02128-JSC 

ORDER ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW 

AS COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. No. 22

Now pending before the Court is the motion of Daniel M. Kopfman, and the law office of 

Wagner, Jones, Kopfman and Artenian, to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Greg Frye. (Dkt. No. 

22.)1 Frye has not responded to the motion, although the time for him to do so has passed. 

Defendants have filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion. (Dkt. No. 23.) After carefully 

considering Counsel’s motion, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see N.D. 

Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS the motion as set forth below.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under the Court’s Civil Local Rules, “[c]ounsel may not withdraw from an action until 

relieved by order of the Court after written notice has been given reasonably in advance to the 

client and to all other parties who have appeared in the case.” Civ. L.R. 11-5(a); Dist. Council No. 

16 No. Cal. Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Lambard Enters., Inc., No. C 09-05189 SBA, 2010 

WL 3339446, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2010) (citations omitted). The Local Rule further 

provides that “[w]hen withdrawal by an attorney from an action is not accompanied by 

simultaneous appearance of substitute counsel or agreement of the party to proceed pro se, leave to 

 

1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the 

ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.

Case 3:15-cv-02128-JSC Document 24 Filed 11/23/15 Page 1 of 4
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

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.” Civ. L.R. 11-

5(b). 

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 counsel seeks to withdraw; (2) the possible prejudice that 

withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm that withdrawal might cause to the 

administration of justice; and (4) the extent to which withdrawal will delay resolution of the case. 

Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010). In this 

District, courts also consider the standards of professional conduct required of members of the 

State Bar of California. See, e.g., U.A. Local 342 Joint Labor-Mgmt. Comm. v. So. City 

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

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

Under California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d), an attorney may request 

permission to withdraw 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).

DISCUSSION

Here, counsel seeks to withdraw because Mr. Frye has repeatedly failed to maintain regular 

communication with counsel and apparently has entered a severance agreement and release with 

Defendant outside of this litigation. In support of his motion to withdraw, Mr. Kopfman has 

submitted a declaration that attests to multiple attempts to contact Mr. Frye to obtain necessary 

information to represent him in this action. (Dkt. No. 22-1.) Mr. Kopfman attests that over the 

past several months his law firm made multiple attempts to reach Mr. Frye by phone, including on 

July 16, July 17, July 22, and during the first week in August. (Id. ¶¶ 4-8.) Mr. Kopfman’s office 

left Mr. Frye a voice message on three of the occasions. (Id.) Mr. Frye did not return any of the 

calls. (See Dkt. No. 22-1 at 4, 6.) On September 24, 2015, Mr. Kopfman’s assistant sent Mr. Frye 

a letter to the address the firm had on file notifying him of the phone calls and counsel’s need to 

Case 3:15-cv-02128-JSC Document 24 Filed 11/23/15 Page 2 of 4
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

speak with Mr. Frye regarding his participation in the action. (Id. ¶ 9 & Ex. A.) The letter was 

sent via certified mail; Mr. Kopfman’s office never received the confirmation card, and Mr. Frye 

never responded to the letter. (Dkt. No. 22-1 ¶ 9.) Receiving no response, on October 6, 2015 Mr. 

Kopfman’s office sent a second certified letter to Mr. Frye at the same address. (Id. ¶ 10 & Ex. 

B.) The letter indicated that if the firm did not hear from Mr. Frye by the end of the following 

week—October 16, 2015—the firm “will ask the court to be relieved of the obligation to represent 

you on this matter.” (Dkt. No. 22-1 Ex. B.) Mr. Kopfman’s firm received confirmation that the 

recipient refused the certified letter. (Id. ¶ 10.) At some point thereafter, defense counsel advised 

Mr. Kopfman that Mr. Frye has entered a severance agreement and release outside of this 

litigation. (Dkt. No. 22 ¶ 5.) As a result, Mr. Kopfman advised Mr. Frye via certified mail of its 

intention to withdraw as his attorney in this action. (Id. ¶ 6.)

Mr. Frye’s failure to maintain regular—or even sporadic—contact with his counsel and to 

cooperate in moving the litigation forward constitutes good cause for withdrawal. This case is in 

its early stages; the case management conference has not yet occurred, so Mr. Frye’s unavailability 

has not yet caused the Court to delay proceedings. But it leaves his attorneys unable to move 

forward to prosecute his claims. And indeed, the lack of a cooperative relationship at any stage in 

the litigation between an attorney and his client may justify the attorney’s withdrawal. See, e.g., 

U.A. Local 342, 2010 WL 1293522, at *3; McClintic v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 13-cv-00439, 2014 

WL 51151, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2014) (collecting cases in which a client’s failure to cooperate 

or communicate effectively with counsel justified the attorney’s motion to withdraw). 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, Mr. Kopfman has taken “reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice 

to the rights of the client,” see Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(A), but Mr. Frye’s lack of 

communication has made it unreasonably difficult for Mr. Kopfman to provide effective 

representation. What is more, it appears that Mr. Frye already may have secured some type of 

relief for his claims by entering the severance agreement and release outside of this litigation. 

(Dkt. No. 22 ¶ 5.) Further, counsel’s withdrawal will not prejudice Defendant, harm the 

Case 3:15-cv-02128-JSC Document 24 Filed 11/23/15 Page 3 of 4
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

administration of justice, or unduly delay the resolution of this case. To the contrary, the case will 

proceed in a timely manner with Mr. Kopfman’s representation of other named plaintiffs, starting 

with the Case Management Conference on December 3, 2015.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons described above, the Court GRANTS Counsel’s motion to withdraw. The 

Clerk shall amend the docket to indicate that Frye is proceeding pro se. His last-available address 

is 5494 Cooper Court, Riverbank, California 95367.

As Plaintiff is now proceeding pro se, the Court directs his attention to the Handbook for 

Pro Se Litigants, which is available along with further information for the parties on the Court’s 

website located at http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants. Plaintiff may also contact the Legal 

Help Center, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, Telephone No. (415)-782-8982, 

for free assistance regarding his claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 23, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02128-JSC Document 24 Filed 11/23/15 Page 4 of 4