Holley v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Background

The court had previously granted Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw from representing Plaintiff Adan “Ace” Zamora, Jr. The court then allowed Zamora to seek reconsideration of that decision and stayed proceedings concerning his claims, except for the briefing deadlines on his reconsideration motion.

Zamora argued that he did not know the withdrawal request could be granted without a hearing and that he had not had a meaningful chance to oppose it. He also cited a family emergency, difficulty finding replacement counsel, a lack of information about Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services withholdings and settlement details, limited access to case materials, and alleged violations of professional-conduct rules.

Counsel responded that Zamora had received written notice and several opportunities to object. Counsel stated that they had communicated with Zamora, sent him his case file and other materials, explained that any Medicare liens could not be determined without an accepted settlement and claims-administration process, recommended that he seek new counsel, and provided names of potential replacement lawyers. Counsel also declared that they disagreed fundamentally with Zamora about the value of his claims, whether to accept a settlement offer, and how to proceed with the litigation.

Court’s analysis

The court held that counsel had provided the written notice required by the Northern District of California’s local rules. It also stated that alleged attorney misconduct would be more appropriately addressed in a separate legal-malpractice lawsuit and found no authority requiring counsel to continue representing Zamora because of such allegations.

Applying California’s professional-conduct rules, the court found that a lawyer may withdraw when a client makes it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to represent the client effectively. The court concluded that the disagreement over settlement and litigation strategy showed a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. It also found that counsel had taken reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable harm to Zamora by giving advance notice, allowing time to find another lawyer, and agreeing to release his case materials.

The court considered the possible effects of withdrawal on Zamora, Gilead Sciences, Inc., the other plaintiffs, and the administration of justice. It found no prejudice to Gilead or the other plaintiffs and determined that Zamora’s individual case was still at an early stage because case-specific discovery had not begun and no trial date had been set for his claims.

The court separately denied Zamora’s motion to exclude evidence under Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. It found that the evidence in counsel’s declaration was not being considered to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction.

Rulings and next steps

Judge Jon S. Tigar denied Zamora’s motion for reconsideration and denied Zamora’s motion to exclude evidence. The court lifted the stay as to Zamora’s claims and ended the requirement that filings be served on Plaintiffs’ counsel for forwarding to Zamora because Zamora could receive electronic filing notices directly.

The court gave Zamora an additional 35 days to try to obtain alternate counsel. Within that period, he had to file either a notice of appearance through new counsel or a notice of intent to proceed without a lawyer. If he did not file either notice, his claims would be subject to dismissal. Before any dismissal, Gilead would have to file and directly serve a motion to dismiss, and Zamora would have 28 days to oppose it. The court stated that failure to oppose could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41, but it did not dismiss Zamora’s claims in this order.