Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01043/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01043-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Ms. Bell incorrectly labeled the re-noticing of her second motion to withdraw as a

third motion.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHELLE ROBERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

KAISER FOUNDATION

HOSPITALS, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C04-1043 TEH 

ORDER GRANTING JAYNELLE

BELL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW

AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

AND ORDER OF REFERRAL TO

CALIFORNIA STATE BAR AND

THE COURT’S STANDING

COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL

CONDUCT FOR DISCIPLINARY

PROCEEDINGS

On February 9, 2005, this Court denied Jaynelle Bell’s first motion to withdraw as

counsel for Plaintiff Michelle Roberson. The Court provisionally granted Ms. Bell’s second

and third motions to withdraw on August 15, 2005, but ultimately denied the motions after a

hearing on September 12, 2005.1

 On October 18, 2005, Ms. Bell filed a fourth motion to

withdraw, and the Court heard from both Ms. Bell and her client, Ms. Roberson, during a

November 28, 2005 motion hearing.

After carefully reviewing Ms. Bell’s moving papers and the record in this case,

including representations made to the Court by Ms. Bell and Ms. Roberson, it is abundantly

clear that denying Ms. Bell’s request to withdraw as counsel for Ms. Roberson would be an

extreme disservice to Ms. Roberson. While the Court makes no determination on the

strength of Ms. Roberson’s claims, or on whether Ms. Roberson has been a cooperative and

truthful client, the disagreement and animosity between Ms. Bell and her client have risen to

Case 3:04-cv-01043-TEH Document 162 Filed 02/10/06 Page 1 of 7
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 level of irreconcilable difference. Ms. Bell has made clear that she will take no further

action in this case if she remains as counsel of record for Ms. Roberson, and the case would

therefore be subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute. Thus, Ms. Bell’s mental state

renders her unable or unwilling to fulfill her duties as Ms. Roberson’s attorney, and

Ms. Bell’s continued employment as Ms. Roberson’s counsel would result in violations of

the rules of professional responsibility. Ms. Bell’s withdrawal is therefore appropriate under

California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700, which governs termination of an attorney’s

employment. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Ms. Bell’s motion to withdraw.

However, even though the Court is granting Ms. Bell’s motion, the July 28, 2005

order to show cause against Ms. Bell for failing to comply with the rules of this Court

remains under submission. Additionally, the Court continues to have serious concerns about

Ms. Bell’s capacity to continue the practice of law, as well as her ability to comply with all

rules of procedure and professional conduct that, as an attorney, she is bound to follow. 

Among other transgressions in this case – which, more than 21 months after its filing, has not

advanced past the pleadings stage – Ms. Bell has:

1. Failed to comply with this Court’s electronic case filing (“ECF”) procedures on

numerous occasions;

2. Failed to comply with Clerk’s notices and Court orders regarding failure to

follow ECF procedures;

3. Failed to appear at the September 20, 2004 motion hearing;

4. Arrived late to the November 22, 2004 case management conference;

5. Failed to meet and confer with opposing counsel to file joint case management

conference statements;

6. Failed to file a declaration or memorandum of points and authorities in support of

her first motion to withdraw, and repeatedly insisted that she did file these

documents;

7. Failed to file a timely opposition to Defendant’s first motion to set aside the

default of Defendant Melody James;

Case 3:04-cv-01043-TEH Document 162 Filed 02/10/06 Page 2 of 7
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

8. Submitted a second motion to withdraw with an ex parte request to shorten time,

without establishing good cause for her request to shorten time; and

9. Failed to comply with the Court’s July 8, 2005 order to re-notice her second

motion to withdraw and to serve a copy of the order and re-notice of motion on

her client.

Beyond these violations of Court orders and rules, Ms. Bell has also lied to the Court

and to a state agency and has violated professional rules of conduct. First, at the October 4,

2004 case management conference, Ms. Bell represented to the Court that her fiancé was

deceased. In fact, Ms. Bell’s fiancé at the time was still alive, as brought to the Court’s

attention by counsel for Defendants at the November 22, 2004 case management conference. 

Ms. Bell confirmed at that case management conference that her current fiancé was, indeed,

alive, but she explained that her former fiancé, Jon Hall, had died. The Court ordered

Ms. Bell to file a copy of Mr. Hall’s death certificate, along with a declaration explaining her

relationship with him. In that declaration, executed on November 30, 2004, but not e-filed

with the Court until December 10, 2004, Ms. Bell declared under penalty of perjury that she

lied to the county recorder’s office to obtain a copy of Mr. Hall’s death certificate. Decl. of

Jaynelle Bell in Opp’n to OSC Re: Sanctions ¶ 7 (docket #58).

Second, on July 28, 2005, the Court ordered Ms. Bell to appear for a hearing on

August 15, 2005, at 10:00 AM. Ms. Bell failed to appear, which was especially egregious

because the hearing was for an order to show cause as to why sanctions should not be

imposed for Ms. Bell’s failure to comply with prior orders of the Court. When the Court’s

courtroom deputy telephoned Ms. Bell’s office at 10:05 AM on August 15, Ms. Bell

answered the telephone and stated that she did not have the hearing on her calendar. The

Court continued the hearing until 11:30 AM to allow Ms. Bell time to travel to this Court,

and the Court subsequently sanctioned Ms. Bell $352.50, payable to opposing counsel, to

cover opposing counsel’s fees for waiting for Ms. Bell late arrival.

Third, in a letter dated November 4, 2005, and provided to the Court by Ms. Roberson

at the November 28, 2005 hearing, Ms. Bell notified counsel for Defendants that she would

Case 3:04-cv-01043-TEH Document 162 Filed 02/10/06 Page 3 of 7
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

4

not be attending Ms. Roberson’s deposition. Thus, Ms. Bell violated her responsibilities to

her client by refusing to represent Ms. Roberson without waiting for this Court to rule on her

motion to withdraw as counsel.

Most recently, in papers filed with her final motion to withdraw, Ms. Bell flouted both

the rules of professional responsibility and the authority of this Court. For instance, Ms. Bell

wrote in her declaration supporting her motion that her client left a phone number at which

she could be reached each morning at 7:30 AM, but that counsel has made no attempt to

reach her client at that time. Decl. of Jaynelle Bell in Supp. of Mot. to Withdraw as Counsel

¶ 7 (docket #155). She also stated in her declaration that, “whether the court grants this

motion or not, Counsel intends to have no further involvement in this case beyond the date of

this hearing, or to spend another dime of her money on Plaintiff’s behalf even if that results

in Counsel committing malpractice or incurring further contempt charges.” Id. ¶ 9. Ms. Bell

continued by stating that, “while this Court can have another ‘fact finding’ hearing if it likes,

Counsel will not abide by any order that requires her to continue representing a person whose

lack of integrity and whose knowingly false, self-serving statements, just to keep Counsel in

this case, have caused Counsel to doubt the entire veracity of her claims.” Id. Along similar

lines, Ms. Bell wrote in the memorandum of points and authorities accompanying her motion

to withdraw that:

Counsel will not continue to represent a client who she despises

nor advance a cause or pay costs of a cause that she no longer

believes is meritorious. Counsel is no longer asking permission

to withdraw; she is withdrawing, a violation of the Rules of

Professional Responsibility. Counsel is no longer caring if

Plaintiff’s rights are protected, a violation of the Rules of

Professional Responsibility, thus, she must withdraw. Counsel is

concerned solely with herself, her ability to pay her bills and in

maintaining her mental well-being thus, Counsel must

mandatorily withdraw. Counsel cannot, in good faith, continue to

advance Plaintiff’s cause. Thus, Counsel must mandatorily

withdraw or commit malpractice when she walks away from

Plaintiff’s case, permission or none. Thus, there is no benefit to

anyone to keeping Counsel in this matter one day longer. 

Counsel is giving notice to the world that she will violate any

court order that requires her to continue to represent Plaintiff

under these conditions. 

Case 3:04-cv-01043-TEH Document 162 Filed 02/10/06 Page 4 of 7
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

In cases designated for electronic filing, it is the Clerk’s practice to accept for filing

documents that are submitted improperly in paper form. When such documents are filed, the

Clerk issues a notice instructing the filing party to e-mail the documents to the Court and

specifically instructing the party not to e-file any document that has been previously filed. 

Despite these instructions, Ms. Bell nonetheless e-filed several documents that had already

been filed.

5

Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. to Withdraw at 4 (docket #156). As evidenced by the

above, Ms. Bell has clearly stated that she cares nothing about this Court’s orders or the

California Rules of Professional Conduct. 

Although Ms. Bell first attempted to remove herself from this case by arguing that she

is abandoning the practice of law to become a real estate agent, Ms. Bell has also steadfastly

refused to resign from the State Bar. Instead, she has repeatedly maintained that she wishes

to retain her active bar membership because she believes it may benefit her real estate

practice. However, Ms. Bell’s actions in this case, and particularly her most recent filings,

make clear that she is unwilling to comply with the rules that govern the practice of law. 

Accordingly, and in light of all of the above, the Court finds good cause to refer Ms. Bell to

the State Bar of California for disciplinary investigation, and the Court will therefore submit

a copy of this order, along with a discipline referral form, to the State Bar. The Court

anticipates that the individuals who review Ms. Bell’s referral for discipline will have access

to the electronic docket in this case, but the Court will attach copies of the following

documents to its referral for ease of reference:

1. Declaration of Jaynelle Bell in Opposition to OSC Re: Sanctions (filed in paper

form as docket #50; erroneously re-filed electronically as docket #58);2

2. Declaration of Lawrence Kimsey in Opposition to OSC Re: Sanctions (filed in

paper form as docket #52; erroneously re-filed electronically as docket #59); 

3. Declaration of Bobby Richardson in Opposition to OSC Re: Sanctions (filed in

paper form as docket #51; erroneously re-filed electronically as docket #60); 

4. January 5, 2005 Scheduling Order Re: Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion to

Withdraw and Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default (docket #70); 

Case 3:04-cv-01043-TEH Document 162 Filed 02/10/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

5. February 9, 2005 Order Denying Jaynelle Bell’s Motion to Withdraw as

Counsel for Plaintiff (docket #77); 

6. July 8, 2005 Order Denying Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time

on Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw (docket #112); 

7. July 28, 2005 Second Order to Show Cause Re: Jaynelle Bell (docket #114); 

8. August 15, 2005 Order Imposing Sanctions on Jaynelle Bell (docket #124);

9. Declaration of Jaynelle Bell in Support of Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

(docket #155); and

10. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Bell & Associates’

Fourth Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (docket #156).

The Court will also attach to its referral copies of the letter from Ms. Bell dated November 4,

2005, and handed to the Court by Ms. Roberson at November 28, 2005 hearing, and a copy

of the fee agreement sent to the Court by Ms. Roberson following the November 28 hearing. 

Neither of these documents has been filed in the docket, but the Court has cited the

November 4 letter in this order, and it provides a copy of the fee agreement in case the State

Bar would like to examine whether Ms. Bell has breached that agreement in addition to

violating the rules that govern attorney conduct.

In making its referral to the State Bar, the Court is uncertain whether Ms. Bell’s

misconduct results from incompetence or lack of ethics or whether Ms. Bell suffers from

mental health issues that impact her ability to function as a lawyer. For example, in

declarations filed by Ms. Bell in opposition to the Court’s first order to show cause as to why

sanctions should not be imposed, Ms. Bell’s former office manager and the administrative

assistant at her realty office both expressed concern over Ms. Bell’s mental state. Kimsey

Decl. ¶ 11 (docket#59); Richardson Decl. ¶¶ 5-6 (docket #60). Whatever the cause of

Ms. Bell’s transgressions, however, the Court strongly believes that it is inappropriate for

Ms. Bell to continue to be permitted to practice law in this state.

Additionally, the Court refers this matter to the Court’s Standing Committee on

Professional Conduct to determine whether Ms. Bell should be barred from practicing in this

Case 3:04-cv-01043-TEH Document 162 Filed 02/10/06 Page 6 of 7
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

Of course, Ms. Roberson would remain free to pursue, in a separate proceeding, any

malpractice claims she may have against Ms. Bell.

7

district even if the State Bar does not revoke Ms. Bell’s license to practice law in California. 

See Civ. L.R. 11-6(c) (providing for the Court’s appointment of a standing committee to

serve as “Special Masters for Disciplinary Proceedings pending before the Court”). The

Court shall attach to its referral to the Standing Committee the same attachments listed

above.

Finally, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Roberson shall be given until

March 31, 2006, to file a notice of appearance of new counsel or a notice that she intends to

prosecute this case pro se – i.e., on her own and without an attorney. If neither notice is filed

within this time frame, this Court will have no alternative but to conclude that Ms. Roberson

no longer wishes to pursue the claims raised in the amended complaint, and the Court will

therefore dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice.3

 As this Court previously advised

Ms. Roberson, dismissal with prejudice means that Ms. Roberson will not be able to recover

on any of the claims raised in the amended complaint filed in this case, even if she were to

find a new attorney willing to take her case at a later date. 

To ensure that Ms. Roberson receives notice of this order, the Clerk shall serve a copy

of this order on Ms. Roberson at her last known address, as reported by Ms. Bell:

4529 Pronghorn Way, Antioch, CA 94509. While the Court would ordinarily require

Ms. Bell to provide notice to Ms. Roberson as a condition of her withdrawal, the Court has

no confidence that Ms. Bell would actually comply with an order to do so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 02/10/06 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:04-cv-01043-TEH Document 162 Filed 02/10/06 Page 7 of 7