Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03051/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03051-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gregory J. Ahern
Defendant
Jane Doe
Plaintiff
Susan Harman
Plaintiff
Nancy Mancias
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

SUSAN HARMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GREGORY J. AHERN,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03051-MEJ 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL TO 

PLAINTIFF JANE DOE

Re: Dkt. No. 34

INTRODUCTION

On June 11, 2015, Covington & Burling LLP and American Civil Liberties Union 

Foundation of Northern California, Inc. (“Plaintiffs’ Counsel”) filed a Motion to Withdraw as 

Counsel to Plaintiff Jane Doe. Dkt. No. 34. Defendant Gregory J. Ahern, Alameda County 

Sheriff, has filed a statement of non-opposition. Dkt. No. 37. Plaintiff Jane Doe has failed to 

respond. The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and 

VACATES the July 23, 2015 hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Having 

considered the record in this case and relevant legal authority, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’

Counsel’s Motion for the reasons set forth below.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs’ Counsel currently serve as pro bono counsel for Plaintiffs Susan Harman, Nancy 

Mancias, and Jane Doe. They seek to withdraw as counsel for Jane Doe because they have been 

unable to make contact with her and cannot proceed without her consent. Mot. at 1. 

In advance of a May 8, 2015 court-ordered settlement conference before Magistrate Judge

Kandis A. Westmore, Plaintiffs’ Counsel contacted Jane Doe several times to seek either her 

attendance at the conference or her consent to reach a settlement agreement on her behalf. Jacobs 

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 38 Filed 07/01/15 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

Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, Dkt. No. 35. Plaintiffs’ Counsel received no response. Id.

On May 8, 2015, the settlement conference was held. Dkt. No. 31. Jane Doe did not 

attend. Jacobs Decl. ¶ 5. In Jane Doe’s absence, Plaintiffs Nancy Mancias and Susan Harman 

reached an agreement in principle with Defendant Ahern, Dkt. No. 31, and since May 8, counsel

have been working to reach a final agreement. Jacobs Decl. ¶ 5. The parties are scheduled to 

attend a follow-up conference before Judge Westmore, when it is anticipated that they might reach

a settlement. Id. Plaintiffs’ Counsel have attempted to contact Jane Doe by telephone and email 

since the May 8 settlement conference, but Jane Doe has not responded. Id. ¶¶ 6-7.

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). However, “[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).

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 

3-700(C) provides several enumerated grounds pursuant to which counsel may properly seek to 

withdraw from a representation. One of these grounds is that “[t]he client . . . by other conduct 

renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively.” Cal.

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

Before counsel can withdraw, counsel must comply with California Rule of Professional 

Conduct 3-700(A)(2), 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 due notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, 

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 38 Filed 07/01/15 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 rule 3-700(D) (regarding papers), and complying with applicable laws and rules. 

El Hage v. U.S. Sec. Assocs., Inc., 2007 WL 4328809, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2007). 

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). 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. Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010).

DISCUSSION

As noted above, Plaintiffs’ Counsel has contacted Jane Doe several times to seek her 

participation in this case, but she has not responded. Jacobs Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, 6-7. Jane Doe also 

failed to appear at the May 8, 2015 settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Westmore. Id.

¶ 5. The Court finds that Jane Doe’s failure to communicate with Plaintiffs’ Counsel constitutes 

good cause for withdrawal. See, e.g., Ortiz v. Freitas, 2015 WL 3826151, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 

18, 2015) (“Mr. Ortiz’s failure to maintain regular contact with his counsel and cooperate in 

moving the litigation forward constitutes good cause for withdrawal.”); j2 Global Commc’ns, Inc. 

v. Blue Jay, Inc., 2009 WL 464768, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2009) (“Luxenberg’s refusal to 

communicate with Sedgwick, despite Sedgwick’s multiple attempts to contact him, makes it 

unreasonably difficult for Sedgwick to represent Luxenberg effectively.”). 

In addition, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Counsel have complied with the requirements of 

Civil Local Rule 11-5(a) and the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Plaintiffs’ Counsel

provided reasonable advance notice to Jane Doe and all the other parties that have appeared in this 

case of their intention to withdraw as Jane Doe’s counsel of record. The Court also finds that 

Plaintiffs’ Counsel have taken steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of Jane 

Doe by giving due notice of their intent to withdraw and by allowing Jane Doe time to obtain 

substitute counsel. Accordingly, the Court concludes that withdrawal is appropriate.

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 38 Filed 07/01/15 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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Motion to 

Withdraw as Counsel to Plaintiff Jane Doe. However, because Jane Doe has not consented to the 

withdrawal and no substitution of counsel has been filed on her behalf, the Motion is granted on 

the condition that all papers from the Court and from Defendant shall continue to be served on 

Jane Doe’s current counsel for forwarding purposes until a substitution of counsel is filed as 

provided by Civil Local Rule 11-5(b). 

As Jane Doe is now proceeding pro se, the Court directs her attention to the Court’s 

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. Jane Doe 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 at http://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersf. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 38 Filed 07/01/15 Page 4 of 4