Jackson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-04677
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Jackson v. Wells Fargo Bank, Judge Gilliam granted attorney Dev D. Patel’s motion to withdraw, requiring him to forward papers for six weeks.
Attorney Dev D. Patel was permitted to withdraw from representing Robert Jackson and Queen Jackson. The plaintiffs were affected by the six-week requirement that Patel forward papers to them; the defendants received notice and did not object.
What happened
In Jackson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., attorney Dev D. Patel asked to stop representing Robert Jackson and Queen Jackson. He said the plaintiffs had ended his firm’s representation and had stopped cooperating and communicating.
The court found that Patel had given the required notice and that no party objected. Because the plaintiffs had not hired replacement counsel or appeared without a lawyer, the court required Patel to accept and forward papers to them for six weeks and to serve them with the order.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted Patel’s motion to withdraw, subject to that six-week service condition.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · No. 4:21-cv-04677
- Haywood Gilliam
- Aug. 27, 2021
Background
Dev D. Patel, the attorney for Plaintiffs Robert Jackson and Queen Jackson, moved to withdraw as their counsel. Patel stated that the plaintiffs had terminated the representation of Saunders Law Group and had failed to cooperate and communicate. He also told the court that the plaintiffs had not responded when he asked whether they planned to obtain replacement counsel or dismiss the case.
Patel reported that he tried several ways to notify the plaintiffs about his motion and the hearing. The opinion states that the plaintiffs had not responded to any of his communications since ending the firm’s representation.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that counsel may withdraw only with a court order after giving reasonable written notice to the clients and other parties who have appeared. If no replacement counsel appears and the client does not appear without a lawyer, the court may require the withdrawing attorney to continue receiving papers so they can be forwarded to the client.
The court found that Patel had satisfied the applicable local rules by giving notice to the plaintiffs and defendants. Neither side objected. The court also found that the motion was permitted under the California Rules of Professional Conduct and that Patel had a good-faith belief that there was good cause for withdrawal.
Ruling
Because the plaintiffs had not filed a substitution of counsel or appeared without a lawyer, the court ordered Patel to accept service of papers for forwarding to the plaintiffs for six weeks. The court also ordered Patel to serve the order on the plaintiffs and file proof of service.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted Patel’s motion to withdraw as counsel for the plaintiffs, subject to that condition.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.