Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04623/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04623-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

SHELBY GAIL HEIFETZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MANOJKUMAR NILKANTH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-04623-TSH 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. No. 28

I. INTRODUCTION

Catherine M. Corfee seeks to withdraw as counsel for Defendants Manojkumar Nilkanth,

Priti M. Nilkanth and Marina Lodge Motel. ECF No. 28. Plaintiff Shelby Heifetz filed an 

opposition (ECF No. 34) and Corfee filed a reply (ECF No. 36). The Court previously vacated the

noticed hearing. ECF No. 39. Having considered the record in this case and relevant legal 

authority, the Court GRANTS Corfee’s motion for the following reasons.

II. BACKGROUND

Heifetz, who is legally blind, brought this action under the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and related state law claims, alleging Defendants denied her and 

other similarly situated blind persons access to the full and equal enjoyment of the Marina Lodge 

Motel, which the Nilkanths own and operate. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1. Corfee has been 

Defendants’ attorney since the inception of this case. Corfee Decl., ECF No. 28-1 at 1. 

On January 30, 2019, Priti Nilkanth filed a declaration indicating that she and her husband 

“no longer have finances to continue litigation, and have our counsel continue work . . . .” 

Nilkanth Decl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 17. Since then, Corfee states she has received calls from her clients 

Case 3:18-cv-04623-TSH Document 40 Filed 07/31/19 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

asking her to withdraw as counsel of record because they are unable to afford legal representation

and they desire to represent themselves. Corfee Decl. ¶¶ 1. As a result, Corfee emailed both her 

clients and opposing counsel stating that she intended to file a motion to withdraw. Corfee Reply 

Decl., Ex. A, ECF No. 36-2. She filed the present motion on June 7, 2019. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

The Court’s Civil Local Rules authorize an attorney to withdraw as counsel of record if: 

(1) written notice has been given reasonably in advance to the client and all other parties in the 

action; and (2) the attorney obtains leave of Court. Civ. L.R. 11-5(a). In this District, the conduct 

of counsel, including the withdrawal of counsel, is governed by the standards of professional 

conduct required of members of the State Bar of California. Civ. L.R. 11-4(a)(1); see Nehad v. 

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

attorney withdrawal). California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16 provides several enumerated 

grounds pursuant to which counsel may properly seek to withdraw from a representation. 

“Courts consider several factors when considering a motion for withdrawal, including: (1) 

the reasons counsel seeks to withdraw; (2) the possible prejudice that withdrawal may cause to 

other litigants; (3) the harm that withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) 

the extent to which withdrawal will delay resolution of the case.” Atkins v. Bank of Am., N.A., 

2015 WL 4150744, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2015) (citing Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, 2010 

WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010)). “When addressing a motion to withdraw, the 

consent of the client is not dispositive.” Robinson v. Delgado, 2010 WL 3259384, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. Aug. 18, 2010) (citing CE Resource, Inc. v. Magellan Group, LLC, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 

(E.D. Cal. Oct.14, 2009)). Instead, the decision to permit counsel to withdraw is within the sound 

discretion of the trial court. United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Before withdrawal is permitted, counsel must comply with California Rule of Professional 

Conduct 1.16(d), which provides that counsel shall not withdraw from employment until the 

member has taken steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, 

including giving sufficient notice to the client to allow time for employment of other counsel, 

complying with Rule 1.16(e) (regarding the return of all client materials and property), and 

Case 3:18-cv-04623-TSH Document 40 Filed 07/31/19 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

complying with all other applicable laws and rules. El Hage v. U.S. Sec. Assocs., Inc., 2007 WL 

4328809, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2007). Further, “[w]hen 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.” Civ. L.R. 11-5(b).

IV. DISCUSSION

The Court finds good cause exists to permit Corfee’s withdrawal. Rule 1.16(b) provides 

that a lawyer may withdraw from representing the client if “the client knowingly* and freely 

assents to termination of the representation.” Cal. R. of Prof’l Conduct, Rule 1.16(b)(6). There is 

no question that Defendants assent to termination of Corfee’s representation as their request to 

represent themselves was the catalyst for the present motion. Further, Defendants have advised 

Corfee that they are unable to afford her representation. Failure to pay attorney’s fees provides a 

sufficient basis on which to grant a request to withdraw. See Garcia v. Zavala, 2019 WL 

2088478, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2019) (granting motion to withdraw in part because defendant 

failed to replenish counsel’s retainer and “counsel is essentially working for free”); Stewart v. 

Boeing Co., 2013 WL 3168269, *2 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 19, 2013) (permitting unpaid attorney to 

withdraw even though no substitute counsel had been retained and stating “[t]he failure of a client 

to pay attorney’s fees provides a sufficient basis on which to grant a request to withdraw from 

representation.”); see also Cal. R. of Prof’l Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(f) (permitting withdrawal if the 

client “breaches an agreement or obligation to the member as to expenses or fees”). 

As to the remaining factors, Corfee has taken reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable 

prejudice to Defendants in that she provided sufficient notice of her intent to file this motion. The

parties are currently in mediation and there are no other pending deadlines. Further, Corfee 

provided Defendants with a chronology of events in this action and a summary of the legal 

arguments and issues, and she has also had several phone conversations with Priti Nilkanth

discussing the issues. Corfee Decl. ¶ 3. Corfee also informed the mediator of her intent to 

withdraw and the mediator “stated that she would allow plenty of time for me to withdraw and 

Case 3:18-cv-04623-TSH Document 40 Filed 07/31/19 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

could work directly with my clients in mediation.” Id. Accordingly, the Court finds leave to 

withdraw is appropriate in these circumstances.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Corfee’s motion to withdraw.1 

However, because there is no indication that Defendants will retain new counsel, the motion is 

granted on the condition that Corfee shall continue to serve all papers from the Court and Heifetz

on Defendants for forwarding purposes until they file a notice of their address for service or a 

substitution of counsel is filed. See Civil L.R. 11-5(b). For all such documents, Corfee shall e-file 

proof of service. No chambers copy is required.

As Defendants are now proceeding pro se, the Court directs their attention to the 

Handbook for Litigants Without a Lawyer, which is available free of charge in the Clerk’s Office 

or online at http://cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbk. Defendants may also wish to seek assistance 

from the Legal Help Center, a free service of the Volunteer Legal Services Program, by calling 

415-782-8982, or by signing up for an appointment on the15th Floor of the Federal Courthouse in 

San Francisco, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. At the Legal Help Center, 

you will be able to speak with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help but not

representation. More information is available athttp://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersf. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2019

THOMAS S. HIXSON

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1 As part of her motion, Corfee requests the Court issue an order to show cause as to why 

Heifetz’s claims should not be dismissed because Defendants have removed the barriers alleged in 

the complaint. Mot. at 3-4. However, the Court finds a motion to withdraw is not the proper 

means for such a request and therefore declines Corfee’s invitation.

Case 3:18-cv-04623-TSH Document 40 Filed 07/31/19 Page 4 of 4