Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01168/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01168-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

ANNA KIHAGI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01168-KAW 

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO 

WITHDRAW; ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 84-87

Attorney Isaac R. Zfaty moves to withdraw his firm as Plaintiffs' counsel. (Mots. To 

Withdraw, Dkt. Nos. 84-87.) Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants filed an opposition to Attorney 

Zfaty's motion to withdraw. The Court held a hearing on the motion on February 21, 2019; 

Attorney Sam B. Maralan appeared on behalf of Attorney Zfaty at the hearing, but Plaintiffs did 

not. (Dkt. No. 96.)

Having reviewed the filings, the Court GRANTS Attorney Zfaty's motion to withdraw as 

counsel.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed the instant case against Defendants on March 12, 2015, asserting various 

constitutional violations. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) On January 15, 2016, the Court stayed the case 

pending a code enforcement case brought by Defendants against Plaintiffs in state court. (Dkt. 

No. 43.) The state case has since been resolved in favor of Defendants, and was upheld on appeal. 

(See Dkt. No. 83 at 2.)

On January 8, 2019, Attorney Zfaty filed four nearly identical motions to withdraw as 

counsel for each Plaintiff, on the ground that there has been a substantial and irreconcilable 

breakdown of the attorney-client relationship, and that Plaintiffs are in breach of the attorneyCase 4:15-cv-01168-KAW Document 97 Filed 02/27/19 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

client agreements. (Dkt. No. 84 at 3; Dkt. No. 85 at 3; Dkt. No. 86 at 3; Dkt. No. 87 at 3.) 

Attorney Zfaty asserts that the breakdown and breach of the attorney-client relationship renders 

representation of Plaintiffs impossible. (Id.)

The motions to withdraw were served on Plaintiffs at the mailing address and e-mail 

address that were used to contact Plaintiffs throughout Attorney Zfaty's representation of 

Plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 84 at 4; Dkt. No. 85 at 4; Dkt. No. 86 at 4; Dkt. No. 87 at 4.) As of the date 

of this order, Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Civil Local Rule 11-5(a),"[c]ounsel may not withdraw from an action until 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." The rule further provides that:

When 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. When this condition is imposed, counsel must 

notify the party of this condition. Any filed consent by the party to 

counsel's withdrawal under these circumstances must include 

acknowledgment of this condition.

Civil L.R. 11-5(b).

Withdrawal is governed by the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Nehad v. 

Mukasey, 535 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying California Rules of Professional Conduct to 

withdrawal by attorney). California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C) sets forth several 

grounds under which an attorney may request permission to withdraw. Counsel may withdraw 

from representation in any matter in which the client "breaches an agreement or obligation to the 

member as to expenses or fees," has made it "unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out 

the employment effectively," or "knowingly and freely assents to termination of the employment." 

Cal. Rules of Prof'l Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d), (f) & (C)(5). The court has discretion to grant or 

deny a motion to withdraw, and it can exercise that discretion, and decide to deny such a motion, 

"where such withdrawal would work an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding." Gong 

v. City of Alameda, Case No. 03-cv-5495 TEH, 2008 WL 160964, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008) 

Case 4:15-cv-01168-KAW Document 97 Filed 02/27/19 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

(internal citation and quotations omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Attorney Zfaty moves to withdraw on the ground that there is an irreconcilable breakdown 

in the attorney-client relationship, and that Plaintiffs have breached the attorney-client agreement. 

(Dkt. No. 84 at 3; Dkt. No. 85 at 3; Dkt. No. 86 at 3; Dkt. No. 87 at 3.)

The Court finds that good cause exists to grant Attorney Zfaty's motion to withdraw. 

Attorney Zfaty asserts that the breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and the breach of the 

attorney-client agreement have rendered representation of Plaintiffs impossible. (Dkt. No. 84 at 3; 

Dkt. No. 85 at 3; Dkt. No. 86 at 3; Dkt. No. 87 at 3.) Further, although Plaintiffs were informed of 

Attorney Zfaty's intent to withdraw prior to the instant motion, and served with the motion to 

withdraw, neither they nor Defendants have objected to the motion. (See Dkt. No. 84 at 4; Dkt. 

No. 85 at 4; Dkt. No. 86 at 4; Dkt. No. 87 at 4.) Finally, there has been no showing that 

withdrawal would work an injustice or cause undue delay of existing deadlines, especially when 

the case has been stayed and it is not clear the case may proceed in light of the state court ruling. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to withdraw.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Attorney Zfaty's motion to withdraw. 

Because Plaintiffs have not consented to the withdrawal and no substitution of counsel has been 

filed, all papers from the Court and from Defendants shall continue to be served on Attorney Zfaty

for forwarding purposes until a substitution of counsel is filed. See Civil L.R. 11-5(b).

Because three of the four Plaintiffs are limited liability corporations, they are not able to 

appear in federal court except by counsel. See Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-

02 (1993). Therefore, the LLC Plaintiffs have 45 days from the date of this order to find substitute 

counsel. The Court advises Plaintiffs that failure to find new counsel or comply with Court orders 

may result in this case being dismissed as to the LLC Plaintiffs. See Brite Smart Corp. v. Google, 

Inc., Case No. 15-cv-3962-BLF, 2016 WL 1070667, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2016) (dismissing 

case for failure to prosecute where corporate plaintiff was unable to obtain counsel to prosecute 

the case); Greenspan v. Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts, Case No. 14-cv-2396-JTM, 2014 WL 

Case 4:15-cv-01168-KAW Document 97 Filed 02/27/19 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

6847460, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2014) (dismissing corporate plaintiff from an action due to 

failure to obtain legal representation).

Additionally, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause why this case should not be 

dismissed, given that the code enforcement case and its appeal have been resolved in favor of 

Defendants. Plaintiffs' response should address whether res judicata and other principles of claim 

preclusion will preclude their federal claims. See Carroll v. City of Mount Clemens, 139 F.3d 

1072, 1075 (6th Cir. 1998) ("If Carroll loses on the merits of her case in the state proceeding, res 

judicata will also preclude her federal claims due to the state court's concurrent jurisdiction over 

those claims"); Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 85 (1984) ("Section 

1983, however, does not override state preclusion law and guarantee petitioner a right to proceed 

to judgment in state court on her state claims and then turn to federal court for adjudication of her 

federal claims. [T]herefore, . . . petitioner's state-court judgment in this litigation has the same 

claim preclusive effect in federal court that the judgment would have in the . . . state courts."); 

Furnace v. Giurbino, 838 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 2016) ("Under the Full Faith and Credit 

Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, federal courts must give the same preclusive effect to state court 

judgments . . . as the rendering state court would."). Plaintiffs' response to this order shall be filed 

within 60 days of the date of this order. Failure to file a timely response will result in the Court 

reassigning the case to a district judge with the recommendation that the case be dismissed for 

failure to prosecute.

Attorney Zfaty is instructed to serve this order on Plaintiffs, and to file a proof of service 

of such service within seven days of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-01168-KAW Document 97 Filed 02/27/19 Page 4 of 4