Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 21, 2023

Page v. Response Marketing Group, LLC

Judge
Jeffrey White
Docket
4:22-cv-06194
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Page v. Broberg, Judge White granted defense counsel’s withdrawal request and required Broberg to choose new counsel or represent himself.

Who this affects

Defendant Mark Broberg’s representation in the case was affected: his current lawyers were permitted to withdraw, and he was required to identify new counsel or state that he would represent himself by March 23, 2023.

What happened

Page v. Broberg concerns a request by Mark Broberg’s lawyers, Jason Sommer and Christina Nugent, to withdraw from representing him. Broberg said he did not oppose the request, and Sally Page did not respond.

The court found that the reasons for withdrawal were allowed under the applicable professional-conduct rules. It also found that withdrawal would not harm the parties, the administration of justice, or the early-stage case.

Judge White granted the motion to withdraw. He ordered Broberg to file a notice saying he would represent himself or have new counsel appear by March 23, 2023, and canceled the March 10 hearing.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Page v. Response Marketing Group, LLC · No. 4:22-cv-06194
Judge
Jeffrey White
Date
Feb. 21, 2023

Background

Jason Sommer and Christina Nugent of Hansen, Kohls, Sommer & Jacob, LLP, moved to withdraw as counsel for Defendant Mark Broberg. They cited California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16 and the Northern District of California’s Civil Local Rule 11-5. Broberg filed a declaration stating that he did not oppose the motion, and Plaintiff Sally Page did not respond.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that an attorney may withdraw in this district only after giving reasonably advance written notice to the client and other parties and obtaining the court’s permission. The court also considers the possible harm to other litigants, the administration of justice, and the timing of the case. After reviewing counsel’s submission, the court found that the reasons for withdrawal fell within the grounds allowed by California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16. Because neither Broberg nor Page opposed the request and the case was in its early stages, the court found no likely harm or delay.

Ruling

Judge Jeffrey S. White granted the motion to withdraw. The court ordered Broberg to file, by March 23, 2023, either a notice stating that he intended to proceed without a lawyer or an appearance by new counsel. If Broberg chose to represent himself, his notice had to state that intention and provide reliable contact information. The court instructed Mr. Sommer to serve the order on Broberg and vacated the hearing scheduled for March 10, 2023.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.