Valenzuela v. Best-Line Shades, Inc.

Background

Leiann Laiks and Fusion Legal, PC moved for permission to withdraw as counsel for Best-Line Shades, Inc., Best-Line, Inc., and Jill Schaffer. The defendants did not respond by the deadline. The court decided the motion without oral argument.

Counsel sought to withdraw from representing the Best-Line entities because they had filed Certificates of Dissolution on June 12, 2020, and counsel stated that they no longer existed as legal entities. Counsel sought to withdraw from representing Schaffer because she had repeatedly failed to communicate with counsel and had stopped paying legal fees, in breach of the written representation agreement. Counsel stated that Schaffer had not paid fees since May 2021 despite repeated attempts to contact her.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that, under the Northern District of California’s local rules, an attorney may not withdraw until the court permits it after adequate written notice to the client and other parties who have appeared. The court also considered the reasons for withdrawal, possible prejudice to other litigants, effects on the administration of justice, potential delay, and applicable California professional-conduct rules.

The court found good cause for withdrawal. It concluded that Schaffer’s failure to maintain contact and cooperate with counsel, together with her failure to pay fees, supported the request. The court also found that withdrawal would not further impede the case or delay its resolution because the litigation was already at an impasse. The court noted that defendants had failed to provide plaintiffs’ counsel with a class list after the court’s class-certification order. Counsel had provided notice of the motion to the plaintiffs and to Schaffer through email, mail, and text messaging at her last known address.

Ruling and required next steps

The court granted the motion to withdraw. Because no substitute counsel had appeared and Schaffer had not agreed to proceed without a lawyer, counsel must continue to receive and forward papers until the Best-Line entities appear through new counsel and Schaffer appears through new counsel or on her own. The Best-Line entities must obtain new counsel within 30 days of the order. The court stated that if they do not, plaintiffs’ counsel will likely be allowed to seek entry of default and a default judgment.

Counsel must notify defendants of the order and the obligation to continue accepting service on their behalf, then file proof of service within three days. The court continued the status conference from December 16, 2021, to January 13, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. The order disposed of the withdrawal motion listed as Docket No. 61.