Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01648/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01648-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:9659 CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response

---

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

ROBERT E. RENZEL TRUST, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALFREDO TORRES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01648-HSG

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE

Re: Dkt. No. 137

On October 27, 2016, Defendant Gary Tran filed what was framed as a “notice of 

substitution of attorney,” in which he asked to “substitute[] himself in pro per in this action[.]” 

See Dkt. No. 135 at 1. Effectively, the filing seeks to replace what should have been a motion to

withdraw as counsel by Defendant’s attorney, Jonathan C. Do. Counsel may not withdraw from 

representing Mr. Tran without the permission of the Court. See Civil L.R. 11-5(a); CA ST RPC 

Rule 3-700(C); see also Gong v. City of Alameda, No. C 03-05495 TEH, 2008 WL 160964, at *1 

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008) (“[T]he Court has discretion to deny an attorney’s request to withdraw 

where such withdrawal would work an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding . . . .” 

(internal quotation marks omitted)). If Mr. Do wishes to withdraw as counsel for Mr. Tran, he 

must file a proper motion to withdraw: no “substitution of attorney” has been presented to the 

Court, because Mr. Tran would be unrepresented if Mr. Do is allowed to withdraw. Unless and 

until the Court allows Mr. Do to withdraw, he has a continuing duty to represent Mr. Tran.

On November 3, 2016, this case was reassigned to the undersigned. The next day, the 

Court set a case management conference for November 15, 2016. As Mr. Tran’s counsel, Mr. Do 

was required to appear at the case management conference. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a) 

(empowering the Court to order counsel to appear at pretrial conferences); Civil L.R. 16-10(c) 

(requiring counsel to appear at case management conferences). But Mr. Do failed to appear.

Case 4:15-cv-01648-HSG Document 142 Filed 11/18/16 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

“Failure by counsel . . . to comply with any duly promulgated local rule or any Federal 

Rule may be a ground for imposition of any authorized sanction.” Civil L.R. 1-4. Accordingly, 

the Court ORDERS Mr. Do to show cause by November 23, 2016 why the Court should not 

sanction him for failing to appear at the November 15, 2016 case management conference on 

behalf of his client, Mr. Tran.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-01648-HSG Document 142 Filed 11/18/16 Page 2 of 2