Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01648/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01648-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:9659 CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response

---

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

ROBERT E. RENZEL TRUST, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALFREDO TORRES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01648-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR 

HYANG BAE WHANG, SEON GEUN 

WHANG, AND KYU CHUK WHANG

Re: Dkt. No. 164

Hyang Bae Whang, Seon Geun Whang, and Kyu Chuk Whang (“Whangs”) have been

represented in this action by Kathleen N. Strickland (“Attorney Strickland”), Stephan Choo 

(“Attorney Choo”), Devin C. Courteau (“Attorney Courteau”), and the law firm Ropers, Majeski, 

Kohn, & Bentley, PC (“Ropers Firm”). Dkt. Nos. 34, 164. On April 21, 2017, Attorney 

Strickland, Attorney Choo, and the Ropers Firm filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for the 

Whangs. Dkt. No. 164. The motion is unopposed. At the in camera hearing held on June 22, 

2017, Seon Geun Whang appeared on behalf of the Whangs and Attorney Choo appeared for

Attorney Strickland and the Ropers Firm. Attorney Choo informed the Court that Attorney 

Courteau left the Ropers Firm and so no longer represents the Whangs. Seon Geun Whang 

confirmed that the Whangs consented to withdrawal and understood the challenges and

responsibilities of proceeding without counsel. Based on the relevant legal authority, the papers, 

and the representations made at the hearing, the Court GRANTS the motion to withdraw.

I. 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.” Withdrawal is governed by the California Rules of 

Professional Conduct. j2 Glob. Commc’ns, Inc. v. Blue Jay, Inc., No. C 08-4254 PJH, 2009 WL 

Case 4:15-cv-01648-HSG Document 172 Filed 06/23/17 Page 1 of 2
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

464768, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2009)). Under Rule 3-700(C), an attorney may only request 

permission to withdraw on certain grounds, of which two are relevant here. See CA ST RPC Rule 

3-700(C). First, a request for withdrawal is permitted where “[t]he client knowingly and freely 

assents to termination of employment.” Id., Rule 3-700(C)(5). In addition, a request for 

withdrawal is permitted where the attorney “believes in good faith . . . that the tribunal will find 

the existence of other good cause for withdrawal.” Id., Rule 3-700(C)(6). The decision to grant or 

deny a motion to withdraw is within the Court’s discretion. Gong v. City of Alameda, No. C 03-

05495 TEH, 2008 WL 160964, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008).

II. DISCUSSION

Local Civil Rule 11-5(a) is satisfied because the filing of the motion over two months ago 

gave all parties reasonable advance notice of withdrawal. See Dkt. No. 164. The Whangs appear 

to have had even more advance notice, given that the mutual agreement to terminate the 

representation was discussed by Attorney Choo and Seon Geun Whang at least as early as January 

18, 2017. See id. at 6. The filing of the motion was also permitted by the California Rules of 

Professional Conduct. Attorney Choo’s declaration and Seon Geun Whang’s statements at the 

hearing established that the Whangs “knowingly and freely assent[ed] to termination of 

employment.” See id.; CA ST RPC 3-700(C). Moreover, Attorney Choo’s representations at the 

hearing demonstrated that the motion was filed with a good faith belief in the existence of good 

cause for withdrawal. See id., Rule 3-700(C)(6). After careful consideration, the Court finds in its 

discretion that withdrawal is warranted. See Gong, 2008 WL 160964, at *1.

III. CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS the motion to withdraw. Attorney Choo, Attorney Stickland, and the 

Ropers Firm must comply with all legal and professional obligations relating to the termination of 

employment, including California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(D).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

6/23/2017

Case 4:15-cv-01648-HSG Document 172 Filed 06/23/17 Page 2 of 2