Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-05433/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-05433-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

FEDERAL SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

H2L1-CSC, JV,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:17-cv-05433-KAW 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

COUNSEL’S MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. No. 58

On July 3, 2019, counsel Ernest M. Isola and John A. Castro filed a motion to withdraw as 

counsel for Plaintiff Federal Solutions Group, Inc. (“FSG”). (Mot., Dkt. No. 58.) Neither Plaintiff 

nor Defendant filed an opposition to counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

On October 3, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the motion, at which FSG’s corporate 

representative did not appear. Having reviewed the filings, the Court GRANTS the motion to 

withdraw as counsel.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel, Ernest M. Isola and John A. Castro of Gordon Rees 

Scully Mansukhani LLP, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. (Mot., Dkt. No. 58). On July 8, 

2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to submit a supplemental declaration in support of the 

motion to withdraw. (Dkt. No. 59.) On July 12, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a declaration 

in support of the motion to withdraw as counsel, and explained that FSG had not paid invoices 

submitted by the firm and third parties for fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this lawsuit, and 

had not responded to counsel’s attempts to communicate for extended periods of time. (Decl. of 

Ernest M. Isola, “Isola Decl.,” Dkt. No. 60 ¶ 4.) On July 26, 2019, Mr. Isola submitted a 

supplemental declaration in support of the motion to withdraw, and provided that his firm had 

Case 4:17-cv-05433-KAW Document 74 Filed 10/04/19 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

reached an agreement, in principle, with FSG that would resolve all issues and result in the 

withdrawal of the motion, but that those obligations had not yet been fulfilled. (Suppl. Decl. of 

Ernest M. Isola, “Suppl. Isola Decl.,” Dkt. No. 63 ¶¶ 3-4.) 

On August 30, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a second supplemental declaration in 

support of the motion to withdraw, in which Mr. Isola represented that the irreconcilable 

differences may be resolved, and requested that the hearing on the motion be continued and that he 

be given an opportunity to file another supplemental declaration to inform the undersigned as to 

whether the disputes identified in the pending motion were resolved. (2d. Suppl. Decl. of Ernest 

M. Isola, “2d Suppl. Isola Decl., Dkt. No. 68 ¶¶ 3-5.) 

On September 26, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a third supplemental declaration in 

support of the motion to withdraw, and confirmed that the issues had not been resolved, and 

reiterated the request to be relieved as counsel. (3d. Suppl. Decl. of Ernest M. Isola, “3d Suppl. 

Isola Decl., Dkt. No. 72 ¶¶ 4-5.)

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. See Nehad v. 

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

attorney withdrawal). Under California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C), an attorney may 

request permission to withdraw if the client breaches an agreement or obligation to its counsel as 

to expenses or fees, or if the client engages in “other conduct [that] renders it unreasonably 

Case 4:17-cv-05433-KAW Document 74 Filed 10/04/19 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

difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively,” such as a client’s failure to 

communicate with his attorney. Cal. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3-700(C)(1)(d). 

The Court has discretion regarding whether to grant a motion to withdraw, and an 

attorney’s request to withdraw should be denied “where such withdrawal would work an injustice 

or cause undue delay in the proceeding.” Gong v. City of Alameda, No. C 03-05495 TEH, 2008 

WL 160964, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008) (no prejudice or undue delay to client where counsel 

provided sufficient notice of its intent to withdraw and where no trial date had yet been set in the 

case).

III. DISCUSSION

Counsel Ernest M. Isola and John A. Castro move to withdraw from representing Plaintiff 

on the grounds that there are irreconcilable differences between him and his client, based on 

Plaintiff’s repeated breach of the attorney-client agreement by failing to pay its outstanding 

invoices from Counsel’s firm and other professional vendors, by failing to live up to its assurance 

that it would remit a retainer going forward, and by failing to respond to counsel’s repeated 

attempts to communicate. (Pl.’s Mot. at 1-2; Isola Decl. ¶ 5; 3d. Suppl. Isola Decl. ¶ 4.) 

Moreover, Mr. Isola has not received any response to his last four attempts to communicate with 

FSG over the past four weeks. (3d. Suppl. Isola Decl. ¶ 4.)

The Court finds that good cause exists to grant the motion to withdraw. Mr. Isola asserts 

that the breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and the breach of the attorney-client 

agreement have rendered continued representation impossible. (See 3d. Isola Decl. ¶ 4.) Further, 

although Plaintiff was served with Mr. Isola’s intent to withdraw prior to the filing of the motion, 

as well as with the motion to withdraw and the multiple, supporting declarations, FSG has not 

objected to the motion. (See Mot. at 2; Dkt. No. 60 at 7; Dkt. No. 63 at 3; 2d. Suppl. Isola Decl. ¶ 

8; 3d. Suppl. Isola Decl. ¶ 7.) 

Finally, while there are existing deadlines, including trial scheduled for March 16, 2020, 

the Court will not require counsel to work without compensation or without ready communication 

from and access to their client, who is ultimately responsible for prosecuting this case. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to withdraw.

Case 4:17-cv-05433-KAW Document 74 Filed 10/04/19 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

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and attorneys Ernest M. Isola

and John A. Castro, as well as the law firm of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, are relieved 

as counsel of record. Since Plaintiff has not consented to the withdrawal and no substitution of 

counsel has been filed, all papers from the court and from other parties shall continue to be served 

on Mr. Isola for forwarding purposes until a substitution of counsel is filed. See Civil L.R. 11-

5(b). 

Additionally, since Plaintiff is a corporation, it is unable appear in federal court except by 

counsel. See Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993). Therefore, FSG has 

45 days from the date of this order to find substitute counsel. The Court advises Plaintiff that 

the failure to obtain new counsel or comply with Court orders may result in this case being 

dismissed for failure to prosecute. 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 6847460, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 

2014) (dismissing corporate plaintiff from an action due to failure to obtain legal representation).

If Plaintiff has no true intention of retaining new counsel to prosecute this case, Plaintiff is 

directed to file a dismissal of this action to avoid unnecessary future motion practice and use of 

judicial resources.

Mr. Isola is instructed to immediately serve this order on Plaintiff, and to file a proof of 

service within 7 days of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-cv-05433-KAW Document 74 Filed 10/04/19 Page 4 of 4