Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02354/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02354-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 05-2354 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 3/23/07**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARK SHERWOOD,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

WAVECREST CORPORATION, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 05-2354 JF (RS)

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION 1

TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF

RECORD FOR DEFENDANTS

WAVECREST AND LEISZ; AND 

(2) SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE

[Re: Doc. No. 88]

On February 28, 2007, counsel for Defendants Wavecrest Corporation (“Wavecrest”) and

Dennis Leisz (“Leisz”) filed an ex parte motion to withdraw as counsel of record in this case. 

Because counsel indicated that Wavecrest and Leisz do not consent to the proposed withdrawal,

and because trial is set to commence on June 15, 2007, the Court set the matter for expedited

hearing on March 23, 2007.

“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

Case 5:05-cv-02354-JF Document 101 Filed 03/23/07 Page 1 of 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

 Counsel have offered to provide more detailed declarations under seal and/or to provide 2

information in an in camera hearing should the Court deem additional information to be

necessary.

2

Case No. C 05-2354 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD

(JFLC2)

appeared in the case.” Civil L.R. 11-5 (a). “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.” Civil L.R. 11-5(b). 

In the Northern District of California, the conduct of counsel is governed by the standards

of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of California, including the Rules

of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California. Elan Transdermal Limited v. Cygnus

Therapeutic Systems, 809 F. Supp. 1383, 1387 (N.D. Cal. 1992). Under those standards, an

attorney may request permission to withdraw if the client breaches an agreement or obligation to

the attorney with respect to payment of expenses or fees. Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct Rule 3-

700(C)(1)(f). Additionally, an attorney may request permission to withdraw in matters where the

client’s conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the attorney to represent the client

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

Wavecrest and Leisz currently are represented by the firm Paul, Hastings, Janofsky &

Walker LLP (“Paul, Hastings”). Two attorneys from Paul, Hastings have filed declarations

stating in general terms that Wavecrest and Leisz have breached their agreement with respect to

the payment of expenses and fees, and that a personality conflict has arisen between counsel and

the clients. See Newman Decl. ¶ 4; Coddon Decl. ¶ 2. Counsel who argued the motion on 2

behalf of Paul, Hastings also represented orally that the fee dispute has dragged on for so long,

and been so unpleasant, that Paul, Hastings is convinced that even if the fee dispute were

resolved, counsel could not maintain a good relationship with Wavecrest and Leisz.

Neither Leisz or any other representative of Wavecrest appeared at the hearing. Leisz did

submit a letter to the Court dated March 21, 2007, expressing dissatisfaction at the amount of

legal fees it has been charged by Paul, Hastings, explaining that Wavecrest is struggling with

cash flow issues, and indicating concern that without Paul, Hastings Wavecrest will be severely

Case 5:05-cv-02354-JF Document 101 Filed 03/23/07 Page 2 of 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

3

Case No. C 05-2354 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD

(JFLC2)

prejudiced in defending this lawsuit.

While it is sympathetic to the financial predicament that Wavecrest and Leisz describe,

the Court concludes that the motion to withdraw is well-taken given the failure – and apparent

inability – to pay attorneys’ fees and the breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. The Court

will direct Defendants or their representatives and counsel for Plaintiff to attend a Case

Management Conference on April 13, 2007 to discuss further proceedings in this case given the

withdrawal of Paul, Hastings. Paul, Hastings will be directed to continue to accept service of

documents on behalf of Wavecrest and Leisz until Wavecrest and Leisz provide new addresses of

record to the Court.

ORDER

(1) The motion to withdraw as counsel of record for Defendants Wavecrest and Leisz

is GRANTED;

(2) Defendants or their representative and counsel for Plaintiff shall appear for a Case

Management Conference on Friday, April 13, 2007 at 10:30 a.m.; and

(3) Paul, Hastings shall continue to accept service of documents on behalf of

Wavecrest and Leisz until Wavecrest and Leisz provide new addresses of record

to the Court.

DATED: 3/23/07 

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02354-JF Document 101 Filed 03/23/07 Page 3 of 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

4

Case No. C 05-2354 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD

(JFLC2)

This Order was served on the following persons:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Robert David Baker

Nieve Anjomi

1611 The Alameda

San Jose, CA 95126

attyatlaw@earthlink.net

Former Counsel for Defendants Wavecrest and Leisz:

bradfordnewman@paulhastings.com

sarjunaran@paulhastings.com

shannonsevey@paulhastings.com

Defendants Wavecrest and Leisz:

Dennis J. Leisz

Wavecrest Corporation

7610 Executive Drive

Eden Prairie, MN 55344

Defendants Amherst and Williams:

Leeh A. DiBello

Ronald D. Digesti

Callahan, McCune & Willis

500 Sansome Street, Suite 410

San Francisco, CA 94111

leeh_dibello@cmwlaw.net, patricia_inabnet@cmwlaw.net 

Case 5:05-cv-02354-JF Document 101 Filed 03/23/07 Page 4 of 4