District Council 16 Northern California Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Herron…
District Council 16 Northern California Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Herron Painting Co.
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:23-cv-00458
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In District Council 16 Northern California Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Herron Painting Co., Judge Hixson conditionally granted counsel’s withdrawal motion and stayed deadlines.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. and its attorneys were permitted to withdraw conditionally from representing Herron Painting Co., Kevin Herron, Herron Painting, Inc., and Dora Herron. The corporate defendants must obtain substitute counsel, while the individual defendants may represent themselves. All case deadlines were stayed.
What happened
District Council 16 Northern California Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Herron Painting Co. concerns the lawyers representing the defendants in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act case about alleged unpaid contributions and union dues. The lawyers asked to withdraw, citing unpaid fees and the defendants’ failure to communicate or provide documents needed for the defense.
The court granted the withdrawal request because the defendants had not responded to repeated communications, had not supplied requested documents, and had not paid the lawyers’ fees and expenses. The lawyers were required to remain counsel of record for serving court documents until the defendants filed a substitution of counsel. The corporate defendants had until May 17, 2024, to obtain new counsel, and all case deadlines were stayed.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson issued the order. The court warned that the corporate defendants’ failure to obtain substitute counsel could result in default judgment, while the individual defendants could choose to represent themselves.
The detailed version
- District Council 16 Northern California Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Herron… · No. 3:23-cv-00458
- Thomas Hixson
- Apr. 19, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs filed the case under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, alleging that the defendants failed to report and pay required contributions and failed to pay union dues under bargaining and trust agreements. Littler Mendelson, P.C., and attorneys Sarah Bryan Fask and Courtney Chambers had represented the defendants.
Littler moved to withdraw under California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b) and Civil Local Rule 11-5. The motion stated that the defendants had breached obligations in the April 5, 2023 engagement agreement, including payment and cooperation obligations, making it unreasonably difficult for Littler to represent them effectively. No opposition was filed.
Court’s analysis
The court found good cause for withdrawal. Littler had unsuccessfully tried to contact the defendants multiple times since mid-February. The defendants did not provide documents needed for a potential hardship exception concerning the alleged payments owed to the plaintiffs, did not respond to emails or text messages, and did not respond after being told on three occasions that Littler intended to withdraw.
The court also found good cause based on nonpayment. The defendants had agreed to pay Littler’s monthly fees and expenses and had agreed that Littler could withdraw if they failed to meet their payment or cooperation obligations. Despite monthly invoices and repeated requests that the defendants bring their payments up to date, the defendants had not paid Littler’s fees and expenses.
The court found that Littler had provided reasonable advance notice of the planned withdrawal and reasonable time for the defendants to obtain replacement counsel. Because a corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel, the court imposed a condition on withdrawal for the corporate defendant, Herron Painting, Inc.
Order
The court GRANTED Littler Mendelson, P.C.’s motion to withdraw as counsel for the defendants. The withdrawal was conditional: Littler had to remain counsel of record to serve filed documents on the defendants until a substitution of counsel was filed. For those documents, the defendants had to electronically file proof of service within three business days after filing.
The corporate defendants had until May 17, 2024, to obtain substitute counsel. The court warned that failure to retain counsel could result in default judgment against the corporate entities. All deadlines in the case were STAYED pending further order. The individual defendants could choose to represent themselves. This order decided counsel’s withdrawal request and did not decide the underlying ERISA claims.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.