Block v. Gennaro's Limited Liability Company

Background

Hendrik Block brought the action based on accessibility barriers he claimed to have encountered at a store in San Jose, California. The docket indicated that Gennaro’s Limited Liability Company owned the real property at the address, while Ganeshkrupa 86 Corporation owned and operated the store.

Attorney Stephan A. Barber and JRG Attorneys at Law moved under Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 11-5 to withdraw as counsel of record for both defendants. The motion cited a potential conflict of interest between the defendants, an alleged material breach of the attorney-client fee agreement by one client, failure to pay for legal services, and difficulty communicating with that client. The motion did not clearly identify which defendant was involved in the alleged fee and communication problems.

The court directed that the motion and an interim order be served on both defendants. The docket showed that notice was sent by mail and email. The defendants and Block had an opportunity to respond, but the court received no objection or response. The matter was decided without oral argument.

Legal standard

Under Civil Local Rule 11-5, counsel may not withdraw until the court grants permission after written notice to the client and other parties who have appeared. California professional-conduct rules also require lawyers to avoid representation involving certain conflicts and to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable prejudice to the client when ending the representation. Those steps include giving the client enough notice to obtain new counsel.

The court considered the reasons for withdrawal, possible prejudice to the other litigants, harm to the administration of justice, and delay in resolving the case. It also noted that Gennaro’s, as an entity, could not participate in the federal case without a licensed attorney.

Ruling

The court granted the motion to withdraw as to Ganeshkrupa 86 because that defendant had submitted a notice showing that it had obtained new counsel.

The court denied without prejudice the motion to withdraw as to Gennaro’s. The court found that the motion did not provide enough information to determine whether withdrawal was appropriate. Specifically, it lacked a more specific explanation of the alleged conflict of interest and of Barber’s and the firm’s efforts to comply with the professional-conduct rules requiring reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to Gennaro’s.

The court stated that a renewed motion concerning Gennaro’s must, without disclosing privileged communications, explain the nature of the conflict that counsel believes prevents continued representation and describe counsel’s efforts to protect Gennaro’s interests and allow sufficient time to retain another lawyer.