Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00322/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00322-10/pdf.json

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

DAVID ORTIZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVE FREITAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-00322-JSC 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR 

PLAINTIFF

Re: Dkt. No. 81

Now pending before the Court is the Motion of Carl B. Shapiro to withdraw as counsel for 

Plaintiff David Ortiz. (Dkt. No. 81.) Plaintiff has not responded to the motion; nor have 

Defendants opposed the motion, although the time for them to do so has passed. After carefully 

considering Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, 

see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS the motion as set forth below.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under the Court’s Civil Local Rules, “[c]ounsel may not withdraw from an action until 

relieved by order of the Court after written notice has been given reasonably in advance to the 

client and to all other parties who have appeared in the case.” Civ. L.R. 11-5(a); Dist. Council No. 

16 No. Cal. Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Lambard Enters., Inc., No. C 09-05189 SBA, 2010 

WL 3339446, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2010) (citations omitted). The Local Rule further 

provides that “[w]hen withdrawal by an attorney from an action is not accompanied by 

simultaneous appearance of substitute counsel or agreement of the party to proceed pro se, leave to 

Case 3:14-cv-00322-JSC Document 82 Filed 06/18/15 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

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). 

The decision to permit withdrawal of counsel is within the trial court’s discretion. See 

United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009); Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, 

Inc., 694 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1982). Courts ruling on motions to withdraw have considered, 

among other things, (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). In this 

District, courts also consider the standards of professional conduct required of members of the 

State Bar of California when determining whether counsel may withdraw representation. See, e.g., 

U.A. Local 342 Joint Labor-Mgmt. Comm. v. So. City Refrigeration, Inc., No. 09-3219, 2010 WL 

1293522, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2010); Cal. Native Plant Soc’y v. U.S. EPA, No. 06-3604, 

2008 WL 4911162, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2008). Under California Rule of Professional 

Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d), an attorney may request permission to withdraw on the basis of “conduct 

[that] renders it unreasonably difficult for the [attorney] to carry out the employment effectively.” 

Cal. Rule of Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d).

DISCUSSION

Here, Mr. Shapiro seeks to withdraw because Mr. Ortiz has repeatedly failed to maintain 

regular communication with counsel. In support of his motion to withdraw, Mr. Shapiro has 

submitted a declaration, as has his paralegal, Karen Wagner. (Dkt. Nos. 81-1 & 81-2.) Ms. 

Wagner’s declaration attests to multiple attempts to contact Mr. Ortiz to determine the duration of 

his stay in various residential treatment programs and to obtain a written release of information 

which would allow her to communicate with his health care provider(s) or the treatment 

program(s) regarding his anticipated discharge date. Ms. Wagner also attests that Mr. Shapiro sent 

Mr. Ortiz two letters notifying Mr. Ortiz that counsel intended to withdraw due to Mr. Ortiz’s lack 

of cooperation in pursuing this action. (Dkt. No. 81-2 ¶¶ 16-17.) Thereafter, on May 19, 2015, 

Case 3:14-cv-00322-JSC Document 82 Filed 06/18/15 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

Mr. Ortiz called Mr. Shapiro and stated that he had consulted two other attorneys and that 

although he wanted Mr. Shapiro to continue to represent him, he “understood that, in the year and 

a half since the case was filed, Mr. Shapiro, who turns 99 in July 2015, would have a hard time 

representing him due to mobility and hearing issues that have worsened in the last year.” (Id. at ¶

19.) Mr. Ortiz was served with a copy of the motion to withdraw in the care of the residential 

treatment program wherein he resides. (Dkt. No. 81-1 at p. 7.)1

Mr. Ortiz’s failure to maintain regular contact with his counsel and cooperate in moving 

the litigation forward constitutes good cause for withdrawal. Proceedings in this case have been 

delayed on multiple occasions because of Mr. Ortiz’s unavailability due to his detention in the 

Sonoma County Jail (Dkt. Nos. 60, 67), his participation in various residential treatment programs 

(Dkt. Nos. 72, 75, 80), and counsel’s inability to locate Mr. Ortiz (Dkt. No. 78-1). The lack of a 

cooperative relationship between an attorney and his client may justify the attorney’s withdrawal. 

See, e.g., U.A. Local 342, 2010 WL 1293522, at *3; McClintic v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 13-cv00439, 2014 WL 51151, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2014) (collecting cases in which a client’s failure 

to cooperate or communicate effectively with counsel justified the attorney’s motion to withdraw). 

However, “withdrawal is only proper if the client’s interest will not be unduly prejudiced or 

delayed.” McClintic, 2014 WL 51151, at *2 (citation omitted). 

Mr. Shapiro has taken “reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the 

rights of the client,” see Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3–700(A); however, Mr. Ortiz’s lack of 

communication regarding his whereabouts and corresponding lack of availability have made it 

unreasonably difficult for Mr. Shapiro to provide effective representation. Further, counsel’s 

withdrawal will not prejudice Defendants, harm the administration of justice or unduly delay the 

resolution of the case. The Court’s last Order required Plaintiff to appear for his previously 

continued deposition on July 7, 2015 and advised him that the action would be dismissed for 

failure to prosecute if he did not appear as the deposition had been continued twice previously due 

to last minute unavailability of either Mr. Ortiz or Mr. Shapiro. (Dkt. No. 80.) On May 14, 2015, 

 

1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the 

ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.

Case 3:14-cv-00322-JSC Document 82 Filed 06/18/15 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

Mr. Shapiro mailed Mr. Ortiz a copy of the Court’s Order and the deposition notice. (Dkt. No. 81-

2 ¶¶ 17-16.) On May 19, 2015, Mr. Ortiz contacted Mr. Shapiro’s law offices and advised Ms. 

Wagner, Mr. Shapiro’s paralegal, that he had received the correspondence from Mr. Shapiro 

including the notice of deposition and that he had consulted two attorneys about taking over 

representation of his case. (Id. at ¶ 19.) Mr. Ortiz has thus had ample notice of the date and time 

of his deposition, the consequences of failing to appear at the deposition, and the opportunity to 

secure other representation for the deposition. Accordingly, notwithstanding the withdrawal of 

Mr. Shapiro, if Mr. Ortiz fails to appear for the deposition on July 7, 2015 at 10 a.m., this 

action may be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED. 

(Dkt. No. 81.) The Clerk shall amend the docket to indicate that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. 

His address is 815 Buena Vista Ave. W. San Francisco, California, 94117, tel. 510.681/8180.

As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court directs his attention to the Handbook for Pro Se 

Litigants, which is available along with further information for the parties on the Court’s website 

located at http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants. Plaintiff may also contact the Legal Help 

Center, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, Telephone No. (415)-782-8982, for 

free assistance regarding his claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00322-JSC Document 82 Filed 06/18/15 Page 4 of 4