Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05765/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05765-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

ST. MATTHEWS BAPTIST CHURCH OF 

LIVERMORE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

FOUNDATION CAPITAL RESOURCES, 

INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-05765-MEJ 

ORDER RE: MOTION BY 

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL TO 

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF 

RECORD

Re: Dkt. No. 55

INTRODUCTION

On January 15, 2015, Edwin C. Schreiber, counsel for Plaintiff St. Matthews Baptist 

Church of Livermore, filed a Motion for Schreiber & Schreiber, Inc. to Withdraw as Counsel of 

Record. Dkt. No. 55. The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument 

and VACATES the February 26, 2015 hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 

Schreiber states that St. Matthews has not paid attorney’s fees in over six months, the 

unpaid fees exceed $40,000, and the unpaid expenses are difficult to manage for a three-member 

law firm. Schreiber Decl. ¶ 2, Dkt. No. 55. Schreiber also states that St. Matthews has refused to 

obtain a new attorney. Id. Schreiber points out that mail to St. Matthew’s last known address has 

been returned undelivered, but Federal Express packages to the same last known address have 

been delivered. Id. 

St. Matthews did not respond, but Defendant Foundation Capital Resources, Inc. filed an 

Opposition. Dkt. No. 56. Defendant maintains that it will be prejudiced if Schreiber & Schreiber 

is permitted to withdraw, given that case management deadlines, including discovery and 

dispositive motions, are fast approaching. Opp’n at 4. Specifically, because St. Matthews is a 

corporation and cannot appear without counsel,1 Defendant argues that it has no means of 

 

1

“A corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or other such entity may appear only 

through a member of the bar of this Court.” Civ. L.R. 3-9(b).

Case 3:13-cv-05765-MEJ Document 57 Filed 02/06/15 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

obtaining discovery responses or serving moving papers on St. Matthews. Id. Defendant also 

argues that any delay in the resolution of this action is unacceptable, because it has already been 

engaged in litigation with St. Matthews since September of 2011, and what began as a simple 

unlawful detainer action has become an expensive and time consuming litigation which has now 

included four lawsuits, including the instant action. Id. 

If the Court is inclined to grant the motion to withdraw, Defendant requests that it be 

subject to the condition that papers may continue to be served on counsel for forwarding purposes, 

unless and until St. Matthews appears by other counsel. Id. Defendant also requests that St. 

Matthews be granted a limited amount of time to obtain new counsel, after which the matter 

should be dismissed without prejudice, allowing St. Matthews to re-file if it obtains counsel and 

the statute of limitations has not run.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Court’s Civil Local Rules authorize an attorney to withdraw as counsel of record if: 

(1) written notice has been given reasonably in advance to the client and all other parties in the 

action; and (2) the attorney obtains leave of Court. Civ. L.R. 11-5(a). However, “[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.” Civ. L.R. 11-5(b).

In this district, the conduct of counsel, including the withdrawal of counsel, is governed by 

the standards of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of California. Civ. 

L.R. 11-4(a)(1); see Nehad v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying California 

Rules of Professional Conduct to attorney withdrawal). California Rule of Professional Conduct 

3-700(C)(1)(f) allows withdrawal when a client “breaches an agreement or obligation to the 

[attorney] as to expenses or fees.” See also Darby v. City of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 

(C.D. Cal. 1992) (failure of a client to pay attorney’s fees is grounds for an attorney to withdraw). 

Moreover, California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(1) (d) allows withdrawal where the 

client “renders it unreasonably difficult for [counsel] to carry out the employment effectively.” 

Case 3:13-cv-05765-MEJ Document 57 Filed 02/06/15 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

Before counsel can withdraw, counsel must comply with California Rule of Professional 

Conduct 3-700(A)(2), which provides that counsel shall not withdraw from employment until the 

member has taken steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, 

including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, 

complying with rule 3-700(D) (regarding papers), and complying with applicable laws and rules. 

El Hage v. U.S. Sec. Assocs., Inc., 2007 WL 4328809, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2007). 

The decision to permit counsel to withdraw is within the sound discretion of the trial court. 

United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009). Courts consider several factors 

when considering a motion for withdrawal, including: (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).

DISCUSSION

Here, Schreiber & Schreiber seeks to withdraw on the ground that St. Matthews has 

breached the attorney-client fee agreement executed by the parties. In support of its motion to 

withdraw, Schreiber & Schreiber submitted the declaration of Edwin C. Schreiber, St. Matthew’s 

counsel of record. Dkt. No. 55 at 3. Schreiber attests that he has communicated by email with St. 

Matthews within the last 30 days, and that the motion was sent to St. Matthews by United States 

Mail, Federal Express, and email. Schreiber Decl. ¶ 2. 

The Court finds that St. Matthew’s failure to pay attorney’s fees constitutes good cause for 

withdrawal. See, e.g., Waters v. E.P. Architectural Builders, Inc., 2011 WL 482769, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. Feb. 7, 2011); U.A. Local 342 Joint Labor-Mgmt. Comm. v. S. City Refrigeration, Inc., 2010 

WL 1293522, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2010). In addition, the Court finds that Schreiber & 

Schreiber has complied with the requirements of Civil Local Rule 11-5(a) and the California Rules 

of Professional Conduct. Schreiber & Schreiber has provided reasonable advance notice to St. 

Matthews and all the other parties that have appeared in this case of its intention to withdraw as 

counsel of record. The Court also finds that Schreiber & Schreiber has taken steps to avoid 

Case 3:13-cv-05765-MEJ Document 57 Filed 02/06/15 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

reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of St. Matthews by giving due notice of its intent to 

withdraw and by allowing St. Matthews time to obtain substitute counsel. Accordingly, the Court 

concludes that withdrawal is appropriate.

However, it is not clear that Schreiber & Schreiber informed their corporate client that it 

must retain new counsel in order to continue to prosecute this action insofar as corporations can 

only appear through licensed counsel. See Civ. L.R. 3-9(b); Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit 

II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993); D-Beam Ltd. P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, 

Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the Court shall grant counsel’s motion to 

withdraw, on the condition that Schreiber & Schreiber remain counsel of record in ECF for 

forwarding purposes until St. Matthews retains alternate counsel as provided by Civil Local Rule 

11-5(b). The Court shall also vacate all pending deadlines in this case and allow St. Matthews 45

days to obtain new counsel. St. Matthews shall file substitution of counsel by no later than March 

23, 2015. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis above, the Court GRANTS Schreiber & Schreiber’s Motion to 

Withdraw as Counsel of Record. However, because St. Matthew’s has not consented to the 

withdrawal and no substitution of counsel has been filed on its behalf, the motion is granted on the 

condition that all papers from the Court and from Defendant shall continue to be served on St. 

Matthew’s current counsel for forwarding purposes until a substitution of counsel is filed as 

provided by Civil Local Rule 11-5(b). Because corporations may not appear in federal court 

except by counsel, St. Matthews has 45 days to find substitute counsel. St. Matthews shall file 

substitution of counsel no later than March 23, 2015. If it has not filed substitution of counsel by 

that date, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice. All pending pretrial and trial deadlines are 

VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-05765-MEJ Document 57 Filed 02/06/15 Page 4 of 4