Page v. Response Marketing Group, LLC

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 6 — 7 SALLY PAGE, Case No. 22-cv-06194-JSW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO FILE 10 MARK BROBERG, NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 24 — 11 — — 12 — 13 Now before the Court for consideration is the motion to withdraw as counsel for Defendant 14 Mark Broberg (“Broberg”) filed by his current counsel Jason Sommer and Christina Nugent of 15 Hansen, Kohls, Sommer & Jacob, LLP. Counsel requests withdrawal pursuant to Rule 1.16 of the 16 California Rules of Professional Conduct and Civil Local Rule 11-5. Mr. Broberg has filed a 17 declaration stating his non-opposition to counsel’s motion. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the 18 motion. 19 The Local Rules permit an attorney to withdraw as counsel of record if: (1) written notice 20 has been given reasonably in advance to the client and all other parties in the action; and (2) the 21 attorney obtains leave of Court. N.D. Civ. L.R. 11-5(a). In this District, the conduct of counsel, 22 including the withdrawal of counsel, is governed by the standards of professional conduct required 23 of members of the State Bar of California. N.D. Civ. L.R. 11-4(a)(1); see Nehad v. Mukasey, 535 24 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying California Rules of Professional Conduct to attorney 25 withdrawal). California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16 provides several enumerated grounds 26 pursuant to which counsel may properly seek to withdraw from a representation. 27 Additionally, “[c]ourts consider several factors when considering a motion for withdrawal, ] may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm that withdrawal might cause to the administration of 2 || justice; and (4) the extent to which withdrawal will delay resolution of the case.” Atkins v. Bank of 3 || Am., N.A., 2015 WL 4150744 , at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2015) (citing Deal v. Countrywide Home 4 || Loans, 2010 WL 3702459 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010)). The decision to permit counsel to 5 withdraw is within the sound discretion of the trial court. United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107 , 6 1113 (9th Cir. 2009). 7 After reviewing counsel’s submission, the Court finds the reasons for withdrawal fall 8 || within those enumerated by California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b). Further, granting 9 || withdrawal will not harm the other litigants as neither Broberg nor Plaintiff opposes counsel’s 10 || request. Withdrawal will also not harm the administration of justice or delay resolution of this 11 case, which 1s in its early stages. 12 Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to GRANT the motion to withdraw. The Court E 13 HEREBY ORDERS that either Defendant Broberg must file a notice of intent to proceed pro se or 14 || Defendant’s new counsel must enter an appearance by no later than March 23, 2023. If Mr. 3 15 || Broberg intends to proceed pro se and represent himself in this matter, his notice of appearance 16 || must indicate his intention to proceed pro se and provide a reliable mailing address, telephone i 17 number, and/or email address for the Court to communicate with him. Information and assistance Z 18 for pro se litigants, including information on how to register for ECF can be accessed online at: 19 || https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/. 20 Mr. Sommer is instructed to serve this order upon Defendant Broberg. The hearing 21 scheduled for March 10, 2023 is VACATED. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: February 21, 2023 fr L/ tA; , é 24 \LFRA Z d JEPFREY/S WHYFE 25 United slates District Judge — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —