Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02905/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02905-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BRAULIO RODRIGUEZ and SILVIA

RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of the

general public,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SUMMIT MORTGAGE REALTY, INC., et al.

Defendants. /

JUAN MEDINA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ARGENT MORTGAGE COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C05-02904 HRL

No. C05-02905 HRL

ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING

ATTORNEY PHILIP ADLESON’S

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS

COUNSEL

[C05-02904: Docket No. 75]

[C05-02905: Docket No. 196]

Attorney Phillip M. Adleson of the Adleson, Hess & Kelly law firm moves for

permission to withdraw as counsel of record for defendants Summit Mortgage Realty, Inc.,

Herman Covarrubias, Esperanza Valverde and Cesar Valverde (aka Cesar Ponte) (collectively,

the “Summit Defendants”). The stated reasons for the request are the Summit Defendants’

alleged (1) breach of their legal agreement to pay their fees; and (2) failure to communicate

*E-FILED 5/8/2008*

Case 5:05-cv-02905-HRL Document 211 Filed 05/08/08 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1 Withdrawal from representation is mandatory where:

(1) The member knows or should know that the client is bringing an

action, conducting a defense, asserting a position in litigation, or taking an appeal,

without probable cause and for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring a

person;

(2) The member knows or should know that the continued employment

will result in violation of these rules or of the State Bar Act; or

(3) The member’s mental or physical condition renders it unreasonably

difficult to carry out the employment effectively.

CAL. RULE OF PROF’L CONDUCT 3-700(B).

2

with their counsel.

The motion papers were duly served upon the Summit Defendants. They have not filed

any response to the motion. Nor did they appear at the May 6, 2008 motion hearing. There has

been no opposition to the motion in Rodriguez v. Summit Mortgage Realty, et al., C05-02904

HRL, and that case remains stayed pending the completion of the Summit Defendant’s state

criminal trial. In Medina, et al. v. Argent Mortgage, et al., C05-02905HRL, only plaintiffs

oppose the motion. Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, as well as the

arguments of counsel, this court issues the following order.

Rule 3-700(C) of California’s Rule of Professional Conduct provides that, except in

cases where withdrawal is mandatory,1

 an attorney may not request permission to withdraw,

unless withdrawal is being sought in certain situations, including where the client’s conduct

which renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively

or where the client breaches an agreement or obligation to pay to the attorney expenses and

fees. See CAL. RULE OF PROF’L CONDUCT 3-700(C)(1)(d), (f). Additionally, under Civil Local

Rule 11-5, “[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.” CIV. L.R. 11-5(a).

Case 5:05-cv-02905-HRL Document 211 Filed 05/08/08 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

Here, Adleson attests that, over the past six months or so, his clients have stopped

communicating with him and have also stopped paying their legal fees. (Adleson Decl. ¶¶ 3-4). 

There has been no showing or argument to the contrary. The court finds that conditions for

permissive withdrawal under California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(d) and (f) have

been met. Accordingly,

1. IT IS ORDERED THAT Adleson’s motion to be relieved as counsel is

GRANTED. However, the withdrawal is subject to the condition that papers directed to

defendant Summit Mortgage Realty, Inc. may continue to be served on Adleson for forwarding

purposes unless and until that defendant appears by other counsel. See CIV. L.R. 11-5(b).

2. The individual Summit Defendants are advised that, although they are

representing themselves, they retain all the obligations of a litigant and remain responsible for

adhering to rules that all litigants must follow. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 ( 9th Cir.

1987) (finding that pro per litigants must follow the same procedural rules as represented

parties).

3. Summit Mortgage Realty, Inc. is advised that it may not appear pro se or

through its corporate officers, but must retain new counsel forthwith to represent it in this

lawsuit. See CIV. L.R. 3-9(b) (“A corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or other

such entity may appear only through a member of the bar of this Court”); see also Rowland v.

California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part

of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed

counsel”); In Re Highley, 459 F.2d 554, 555 (9th Cir. 1972) (“A corporation can appear in a

court proceeding only through an attorney at law”). Summit Mortgage Realty, Inc. is further

advised that it retains all of the obligations of a litigant, and its failure to obtain an

attorney may lead to an order striking its pleadings or entry of its default.

Dated: ________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

May 8, 2008

Case 5:05-cv-02905-HRL Document 211 Filed 05/08/08 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

5:05-cv-2904 Notice has been electronically mailed to: 

Phillip Mark Adleson padleson@ahk-law.com, tclark@ahk-law.com 

Nancy M. Battel nancy@battelaw.com, battelaw@aol.com 

Candie Yi-Chun Chang cchang@garrett-tully.com 

Damian Rene Fernandez damianfernandez@gmail.com 

James Louis Stoelker jstoelker@mount.com, sretes@mount.com 

Glenn Harlan Wechsler glenn@glennwechsler.com 

5:05-cv-2905 Notice has been electronically mailed to: 

Phillip Mark Adleson padleson@ahk-law.com, tclark@ahk-law.com 

Kerstin Arusha kerstina@lawfoundation.org 

Karen A. Braje kbraje@reedsmith.com 

Candie Yi-Chun Chang cchang@garrett-tully.com 

Moses Diaz mosesd@lawfoundation.org, moses@ucdavis-alumni.com 

Matthew Greinert greinertm@howrey.com, kasenenkop@howrey.com 

Kyra Ann Kazantzis kyrak@lawfoundation.org 

Courtney Lynn Landis clandis@morganlewis.com, cgreenblatt@morganlewis.com 

David Alan Makman makmand@howrey.com, kasenenkop@howrey.com 

Jami Wintz McKeon jmckeon@morganlewis.com, cgreenblatt@morganlewis.com 

Jack R. Nelson cahunt@reedsmith.com, jnelson@reedsmith.com 

James F. Zahradka , II jamesz@lawfoundation.org, teresam@lawfoundation.org

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have

not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

5:05-cv-2905 Notice has been mailed to

Herman Covarrubias

5794 Vitero Way

San Jose, CA 95138

Esperanza Valverde

5794 Vitero Way

San Jose, CA 95138

Case 5:05-cv-02905-HRL Document 211 Filed 05/08/08 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

Cesar Ponte/Cesar Valverde

5794 Vitero Way

San Jose, CA 95138

Herman Covarrubias

c/o John L. Williams

Manchester, Williams & Seibert

125 S. Market Street, #1100

San Jose, CA 95113

Esperanza Valverde

c/o Christian E. Picone

Berliner Cohen

Ten Almaden Blvd., 11th Floor

San Jose, CA 95113

Cesar Ponte/Cesar Valverde

c/o Lagod & Christensen

360 W. Hedding Street

San Jose, CA 95110

Case 5:05-cv-02905-HRL Document 211 Filed 05/08/08 Page 5 of 5