Johnson v. Serenity Transportation, Inc.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:15-cv-02004
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Johnson v. Serenity Transportation, Judge Corley granted defense counsel’s withdrawal motion, subject to continued-service conditions.
Schauman & Hubins, P.C. was permitted to withdraw as counsel for the defendants. Serenity Transportation, Inc. and David Friedel must arrange other representation, with Friedel permitted to appear without a lawyer; meanwhile, court papers must continue to be served on former counsel for forwarding.
What happened
In Johnson v. Serenity Transportation, defense counsel asked to withdraw because the defendants had not paid legal fees owed under their agreement. The motion was unopposed, and counsel had warned the defendants several times and notified the other parties.
The court found good cause for withdrawal. It concluded that the unpaid fees, the defendants’ time to correct the problem, the notices provided, the lack of imminent deadlines, and arrangements to make the case file available showed that withdrawal would not unfairly harm the parties or delay the case.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley vacated the scheduled hearing and granted the motion to withdraw. Under the court’s conditions, the attorneys must continue receiving and forwarding court papers until Serenity Transportation has other counsel and David Friedel has other counsel or appears without a lawyer.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Serenity Transportation, Inc. · No. 3:15-cv-02004
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Sept. 11, 2020
Background
Schauman & Hubins, P.C., counsel of record for the defendants, moved for permission to withdraw from representing them. The firm stated that the defendants had not paid for past legal services in this case and had therefore breached the agreement concerning payment of attorneys’ fees. The motion was unopposed. Counsel stated that the defendants and all other appearing parties had received the required notice.
The court also vacated the September 24, 2020 hearing because it determined that oral argument was unnecessary.
Legal standard
The court applied the professional-conduct rules governing California lawyers. Those rules allow withdrawal when a client materially breaches the representation agreement, provided the lawyer gives a reasonable warning and takes reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable harm to the client. The court also considered the reason for withdrawal, possible prejudice to other litigants, harm to the administration of justice, and possible delay.
Court’s analysis
The court found good cause for withdrawal. It noted that the defendants had more than one year to pay the outstanding fees but had not done so. The court stated that failure to pay attorneys’ fees is a sufficient basis for granting withdrawal.
The court found that withdrawal would not prejudice the other parties or interfere with the administration of justice. Counsel had repeatedly warned the defendants since June 2019 that it would seek withdrawal unless the fees were paid. There were no upcoming deadlines other than a case-management hearing, and counsel had made the defendants’ file available for pickup. The court concluded that counsel had complied with the relevant California professional-conduct rules.
Disposition
The court GRANTED the motion to withdraw as counsel, subject to the conditions in Civil Local Rule 11-5(b). Because no substitute counsel had appeared for either defendant, and David Friedel had not agreed to appear without a lawyer, Schauman & Hubins must continue receiving court papers for forwarding until Serenity appears through other counsel and Friedel appears through other counsel or without a lawyer. Counsel must notify the defendants of this condition.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.