Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05495/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05495-10/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 Rule 3-700 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct requires any member

seeking to withdraw from representation to “take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably

foreseeable prejudice to the right of the client, including giving notice to the client, allowing

time for employment of other counsel, complying with Rule 3-700(d), and complying with

applicable laws and rules.” Rule 3-700(D), in turn, requires counsel to release all client

property to the client, including files, pleadings, exhibits, transcripts, and other materials. 

The Civil Local Rules require counsel to be relieved by order of Court after written notice

has been given to the client and all parties. Local Rule 11-5. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAO-QI GONG, and JEFFERY PETERS,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 03-05495 TEH

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

WITHDRAW AND SETTING

FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE

This matter came before the Court on January 7, 2008, on the motion of Plaintiffs’

counsel, David Beauvais, to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs. After reviewing the

papers and oral presentations of counsel and Ms. Gong, and after consulting with

Magistrate Judge LaPorte, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion. 

Mr. Beauvais either has met or will be able to meet the general prerequisites for

withdrawal set out in the California Rules of Professional Conduct (“Rules”) and the

Local Rules of this Court.1

 Although the Court “has discretion to deny an attorney's

request to withdraw where such withdrawal would work an injustice or cause undue

delay in the proceeding,” Mandell v. Superior Court, 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4 (1977), but

there is no showing that an injustice will be caused by Mr. Beauvais’s withdrawal at this

Case 3:03-cv-05495-TEH Document 101 Filed 01/08/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

 The Model Rules also allow an attorney to withdraw any time there is no “material

adverse effect” on the client.

3

 This was confirmed by Judge LaPorte.

2

juncture in the litigation. Mr. Beauvais has diligently and ably represented Plaintiffs

through discovery and defendant’s motion for summary judgment. No trial date set. It

appears that Plaintiffs themselves have been responsible for multiple delays and failures

to appear in this action.

Mr. Beauvais gave Plaintiffs ample written notice of his intent to withdraw by

serving his motion papers on them on or before November 13, 2007 (although in the

nearly two months since that date, Plaintiffs have apparently made no effort to find

substitute counsel). Moreover, Mr. Beauvais has represented that he will cooperate with

the Plaintiffs in turning over the case to successor counsel.

Rule 3-700(C)(1)(d), which allows a member to withdraw from representation in

any matter in which the client has made it “unreasonably difficult for the member to

carry out the employment effectively.” See also Model Rule of Professional Conduct

1.16(b)(6)(permissive withdrawal where “the representation will result in an

unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult

by the client”).2

 

Although a simple refusal to settle does not constitute cause for withdrawal, 

Estate of Falco, 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1018 (1987), a personality clash that leads to a

breakdown in the attorney-client relationship is sufficient ground for allowing the

attorney to withdraw. Id. at 1014-1015; see also Forrest v. State Of California Dept. Of

Corporations, 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 194 (2007)(withdrawal properly allowed where

attorney declares, inter alia, that client refuses to follow his advice and continuing would

pose an extreme financial hardship on him). Here, Mr. Beauvais has adequately shown a

breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. He described a pattern of failure to

communicate with him that culminated in Plaintiffs’ one hour tardiness and refusal to

participate in good faith in a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Laporte.3

 

Case 3:03-cv-05495-TEH Document 101 Filed 01/08/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

Plaintiff Gong’s description of her interactions with counsel illustrates this

breakdown. While Mr. Beauvais declared that he had served his motion papers on the

Plaintiffs at their residence on or before November 13, 2007, Plaintiff stated at the

hearing that she heard of his motion to withdraw for the first time on January 5, 2008,

when this Court’s order to appear was served on Plaintiffs at their residence. (On the

other hand, Plaintiff also claimed that she was unable to look for substitute counsel

because of the holidays). Contradicting her counsel, Plaintiff not only denied that she

had been tardy to more than one settlement conference, but accused Mr. Beauvais of

being late to a conference before Magistrate Judge LaPorte – an allegation which

Magistrate Judge LaPorte did not confirm. The trust and cooperation necessary for an

attorney-client relationship has obviously broken down, making it unreasonably difficult

for Mr. Beauvais to continue representing Plaintiffs.

Accordingly, Mr. Beauvais’s Motion to Withdraw is hereby GRANTED. Mr.

Beauvais shall promptly serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiffs.

A further Case Management Conference is hereby set for February 25, 2007 at

1:30 p.m. If Plaintiffs have not been able to engage new counsel by that time, they are to

bring a written list of the names and addresses of attorneys whom they contacted. In

addition, if they are unable to secure counsel, they should familiarize themselves with

this Court’s General Order 45 on Electronic Case Filing, and register for electronic case

filing with the Court, at https://ecf.cand.circ9.dcn/cand/index.html, and 

http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov, prior to the case management conference.

Failure of the Plaintiffs to comply with this Order, or to appear in a timely fashion

at the Case Management Conference, will open Plaintiffs to dismissal of this action for

failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2008 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-05495-TEH Document 101 Filed 01/08/08 Page 3 of 3