Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03784/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03784-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Cathcart
Counter-defendant
United States of America
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT CATHCART,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-03784 WHA

ORDER RE MOTION

TO WITHDRAW AS

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL

Represented by counsel, plaintiff Scott Cathcart brought this action on August 7, 2008,

to obtain a refund of what he claims were erroneously imposed tax penalties he paid the IRS. 

An automatic stay of this matter has been in effect since November 10, 2008, due to plaintiff’s

bankruptcy. Attorneys Daniel B. Rosenbaum and Matthew C. Hicks of Caplin & Drysdale and

David B. Porter of Wood & Porter move to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff pursuant to Local

Rule 11-5. This motion is not accompanied by the simultaneous appearance of substitute

counsel. Under Civil Local Rule 11-5(a), 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 appeared in the case.” When withdrawal by an attorney

from an action is not accompanied by simultaneous appearance of substitute counsel or

agreement of the parties 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

clients appear by other counsel or pro se. Civil L.R. 11-5(b).

Attorneys Hicks and Porter state in their brief that they seek to withdraw because

plaintiff has breached his agreement to pay their expenses and fees (Br. at 1–2). They state that

Case 3:08-cv-03784-WHA Document 19 Filed 02/22/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

plaintiff “knowingly and freely assents to termination of their employment,” intends to proceed

pro se, and would like future papers to be served on him directly. They further state that they

have given counsel for defendant written notice of their intent to withdraw and that defendant

does not object to their withdrawal. However, they do not include any sworn declaration in

support of their brief.

A hearing will be held on this motion on MARCH 11, 2010, AT 8:00 A.M. It is more

likely that this motion will be granted if substitute counsel are present. Existing counsel of

record should be prepared to explain why they launched this lawsuit and why they should not be

required to see it through to the end.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-03784-WHA Document 19 Filed 02/22/10 Page 2 of 2