Feamster v. Gaco Western, LLC
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:18-cv-01327
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Feamster v. Gaco Western, Judge Gilliam granted Feamster’s lawyers’ motion to withdraw after counsel-client differences made continued representation impossible.
Robert Scott Feamster, his three withdrawing attorneys, and the parties’ future service arrangements. Feamster will proceed without a lawyer and must provide current contact information.
What happened
In Feamster v. Gaco Western, attorneys Eustace de Saint Phalle, Ilya Frangos, and Chantele L. Fitting asked to stop representing plaintiff Robert Scott Feamster. They said their relationship with Feamster had deteriorated and that continued representation was impossible. Feamster agreed to the withdrawal and said he would proceed without a lawyer.
The court reviewed the motion, the applicable rules, and the reasons discussed privately during a hearing. It found that the required notice had been provided, that counsel had a good-faith basis for seeking withdrawal, and that allowing the withdrawal was fair. The opinion does not disclose the reasons discussed privately.
Judge Gilliam granted the motion to withdraw as counsel. Feamster must provide the court with his current contact information so he can receive future service as an individual.
The detailed version
- Feamster v. Gaco Western, LLC · No. 4:18-cv-01327
- Haywood Gilliam
- Sept. 22, 2021
Background
Attorneys Eustace de Saint Phalle, Ilya Frangos, and Chantele L. Fitting moved to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff Robert Scott Feamster. They stated that the attorney-client relationship had deteriorated to the point that they could not continue representing him or take necessary litigation steps to protect his interests. Counsel also described the situation as involving irreconcilable differences that created a conflict and made continued representation impossible.
Feamster signed a stipulation agreeing to his attorneys’ withdrawal and stating that he would proceed without counsel. The attorneys filed their motion on September 3, 2021. The court held a hearing on September 16, 2021, attended by counsel, Feamster, and defense counsel. The court discussed the reasons for the motion privately, and the opinion does not disclose those reasons.
Legal standard
Under Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 11-5(a), counsel may not withdraw until the court grants permission after reasonable advance written notice to the client and other parties who have appeared. California professional-conduct rules also require court permission for permissive withdrawal. Those rules allow withdrawal when an attorney believes in good faith that there is another good cause for withdrawal, but require reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the client, including notice and time to obtain other counsel.
Courts also balance the relevant equities, including the reasons for withdrawal, possible prejudice to other litigants, effects on the administration of justice, and possible delay.
Court’s analysis and ruling
The court found that the notice requirements were satisfied because the motion was filed on September 3, 2021, and counsel had notified Feamster before filing. Based on the information discussed during the private hearing, the court was persuaded that counsel had a good-faith belief that good cause supported withdrawal. After balancing the equities, the court found that withdrawal was just and warranted.
The court therefore GRANTED the motion to withdraw as counsel. Because Feamster indicated that he would proceed without a lawyer, the court ordered him to provide current contact information so he could be served as an individual going forward.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.