Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01310/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01310-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

FADI SABA,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNISYS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01310-WHO 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW AND PERMITTING 

PLAINTIFF TO PROCEED PRO SE

On July 9, 2015, while defendant Unisys Corporation’s motion for summary judgment and 

plaintiff Fadi Saba’s motion for partial summary judgment were under submission, Saba, through 

his attorney Charles Wisch, filed a document entitled “Substitution of Attorney.” Dkt. No. 135. 

This stated that Saba “hereby substitutes himself in place of his attorney of record Charles J. 

Wisch” and was signed by both Saba and Wisch. Id. Along with this motion, Saba filed a motion

(signed by Wisch) to stay the proceedings as a result of this supposed substitution. Dkt. No. 134. 

I granted Unisys’s motion for summary judgment and denied Saba’s motion for partial 

summary judgment on July 17, 2015. Dkt. No. 137. At the end of the order granting summary 

judgment, I denied Saba’s request for a temporary stay as moot. I did not see a reason to rule on 

Wisch’s motion to withdraw1in light of my ruling. Judgment was entered the same day. Dkt. No. 

138. 

Because Wisch was not relieved by order of the court as required by Civil Local Rule 11-

5,2he remained Saba’s attorney of record after judgment was entered. Saba and Wisch believed, 

 

1 Although the document titled “Substitution of Attorney” did not formally request either that 

Wisch withdraw as attorney or that Saba proceed pro se, I treat the document as a request pursuant 

to Civil Local Rule 11-5. 

2

This states, in relevant part, that “Counsel 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.” Civ. L.R. 11-5(a). 

Case 3:14-cv-01310-WHO Document 142 Filed 08/06/15 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

however, that Wisch was relieved as attorney and that Saba was representing himself as of the date 

of the summary judgment Order, as expressed in the letter filed at Docket No.141. Given the 

request of Saba and Wisch to effect the change in representation, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 60(a), I alter my prior Order on summary judgment and GRANT Wisch’s request to 

withdraw nunc pro tunc; Saba’s request to proceed pro se is also GRANTED. 

That done, I recommend that Saba seek assistance immediately from the Northern 

District’s Pro Se Help Desk (415.782.9000 extension 8657), including for the purposes of 

determining deadlines for court filings. Wisch shall immediately serve Saba with this Order and 

underscore the importance of filing any post judgment motions or notice of appeal, if desired, in a 

timely manner. Importantly, any appeal must be filed in accordance with Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 4(a), which states that “the notice of appeal required by Rule 3 must be 

filed with the district court within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed 

from.” This Order does not enlarge the time for Saba to file any pleadings or notices.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01310-WHO Document 142 Filed 08/06/15 Page 2 of 2