Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-04519/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-04519-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards 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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

HUGO MADRID, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TELENETWORK PARTNERS, LTD., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-04519-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING JESSE L. 

YOUNG’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW 

AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

[Re: ECF 55]

Before the Court is Jesse L. Young’s (“Young”) motion to withdraw as counsel of record

in this matter for Plaintiffs pursuant to Civil Local Rule 11-5. See ECF 55 (“Mot.”). The time to 

oppose the motion has passed and no party has filed an opposition. For the reasons that follow, 

Young’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiffs is GRANTED.

The decision to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel is committed to 

the sound discretion of the trial court. j2 Glob. Commc'ns, Inc. v. Blue Jay, Inc., No. C 08-

4254PJH, 2009 WL 464768, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2009) (citing LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 

1253, 1269 (9th Cir.)). In this district, the California Rules of Professional Conduct govern 

withdrawal of counsel. See Nehad v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2008); j2 Glob. 

Commc'ns, Inc. v. Blue Jay, Inc., No. C 08-4254PJH, 2009 WL 464768, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 

2009). Moreover, under Civil Local Rule 11-5, “[c]ounsel may not withdraw from an action 

unless 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.” Where “withdrawal of an attorney 

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.” Civ. L.R. 11-5(b).

Case 5:17-cv-04519-BLF Document 57 Filed 02/13/18 Page 1 of 2
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

Here, Plaintiffs will continue to be represented in this action by Jahan C. Sagafi of Outten 

& Golden LLP, as well as Kevin J. Stoops of Sommers Schwartz, P.C. See Mot. ¶ 2. Mr. Young 

further represents that his withdrawal will not prejudice any party and will not delay the 

prosecution of this matter. Id. ¶ 3. Given that Plaintiffs continue to be represented by counsel, 

and that there is no opposition to the motion, the Court concludes that withdrawal will not 

prejudice the parties or unduly delay resolution of this matter. 

Accordingly, Jesse L. Young’s motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2018

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-04519-BLF Document 57 Filed 02/13/18 Page 2 of 2