Jo Ann Hoeppner-Cruz, Plaintiff, v. Robert W Brower, Defendant.

Opinion

JO ANN HOEPPNER-CRUZ, Case No. 24-cv-05170-TSH

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO v. WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL WITH CONDITIONS; DISCHARGING ROBERT W BROWER, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; DENYING AS MOOT EX PARTE MOTION TO Defendant. CONTINUE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 60, 61, 66

Plaintiff Jo Ann Hoeppner-Cruz, in her capacity as the Trustee of The Anthony J. Freitas and Jacqueline Hoeppner-Freitas 1997 Revocable Trust, brings this case under California Probate Code section 17200 against Defendant Robert Brower related to the sale of property under the Trust. ECF No. 1. The case is scheduled for jury trial on January 20, 2026. ECF No. 44. On December 4, 2025, Thomas Dwayne Reid filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Hoeppner-Cruz. ECF No. 66. The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and VACATES the January 15, 2026, hearing. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion to withdraw and VACATES all pending dates in this case. The jury trial in this case is STAYED pending further order of the Court. In addition, the Court DISCHARGES the show cause order at ECF No. 60 and DENIES as moot Hoeppner- Cruz’s Ex Parte Motion at ECF No. 61.1 Hoeppner-Cruz filed this case on August 15, 2024, alleging that Brower breached his fiduciary duty when he served as trustee for the Trust. ECF No. 1. The case is scheduled for jury trial on January 20, 2026. ECF No. 44. On November 12, 2025, the Court ordered supplemental briefing addressing whether the probate exception applies to each of the claims in this case. ECF No. 56. Brower filed a brief on November 14, 2025. ECF No. 57. Because Hoeppner-Cruz failed to file a response in compliance with the Court’s order at ECF No. 56, the Court issued an order to show cause on November 24, 2025, directing Hoeppner-Cruz to file a response by December 1, 2025. See ECF No. 60. On November 25, 2025, Hoeppner-Cruz filed an Ex Parte Motion to Continue Trial Date and Pre-Trial Dates, “requesting that the Court continue the trial currently scheduled for January 20, 2026 to allow [Hoeppner-Cruz] time to retain substitute counsel in the matter.”2 ECF No. 61. On December 2, 2025, the Court issued an order addressing Hoeppner-Cruz’s counsel of record, explaining that Reid had failed to comply with the Court’s order for supplemental briefing and its order to show cause. ECF No. 65. The Court ordered Reid to respond by December 5, 2025. Id. On December 4, 2025, Reid filed the instant Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, on the ground that he is forced to close his law practice due to financial hardship. ECF No. 66. Reid notified Hoeppner-Cruz of his inability to continue representing her on November 15, 2025. See Declaration of Thomas D. Reid at 2 (“Reid Decl.”) (ECF No. 66-1). Hoeppner-Cruz consents to the withdrawal. See Consent to Withdrawal of Attorney (ECF No. 66-2). And Brower responds that he does not oppose the request. ECF No. 67.3 The Local Rules provide that “[c]ounsel may not withdraw from an action until relieved by order of Court after written notice has been provided, reasonably in advance, to the client and to all other parties who have appeared in the case.” Civ. L.R. 11-5(a). The decision to permit counsel to withdraw is within the sound discretion of the trial court. United States v. Carter, 560 2 On November 30, 2025, Brower filed an Opposition to Hoeppner-Cruz’s ex parte motion, requesting that the Court deny the motion without prejudice. ECF No. 64.

3 Brower requests “that the motion be granted and entered nunc pro tunc to November 15, 2025, F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009). When addressing a motion to withdraw, the consent of the client is not dispositive. Robinson v. Delgado, No. CV02-1538 NJV, 2010 WL 3259384, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2010). Rather, the court must consider factors such as the reason counsel seeks to withdraw, the possible prejudice caused to the litigants, and the extent to which withdrawal may delay resolution of the case. Id. Additionally, the Local Rules mandate compliance with the standards of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of California. Civ. L.R. 11-4(a)(1); see also Nehad v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying California Rules of Professional Conduct to attorney withdrawal). Counsel must take steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving sufficient notice to the client to allow time for employment of other counsel, complying with Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(e) (regarding the return of all client materials and property), and complying with all other applicable laws and rules. El Hage v. U.S. Sec. Assocs., Inc., No. C06-7828-THE, 2007 WL 4328809, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2007). Based on the record in this case, the Court finds withdrawal is appropriate. California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16 provides several enumerated grounds pursuant to which counsel may properly seek to withdraw from a representation, including where “the client knowingly and freely assents to termination of the representation,” and where “the lawyer believes in good faith, in a proceeding pending before a tribunal, that the tribunal will find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal.” Here, Reid states that he cannot adequately represent Hoeppner-Cruz because he must close his law practice as his office has suffered significant financial loss and his practice is financially insolvent. Reid Decl. ¶¶ 4–6. Because of this financial hardship, Reid’s malpractice insurance was canceled due to nonpayment—this “caused an urgent need to cease practice on existing matters.” Id. at ¶ 5. Reid notified Hoeppner-Cruz on November 15, 2025, and Brower on November 17, 2025, that he could no longer represent Hoeppner-Cruz in this matter. Id. at ¶¶ 7–8. Hoeppner-Cruz consents to the withdrawal. See ECF No. 66-2. The Court finds that Reid’s practice closure and financial insolvency, along with Hoeppner-Cruz’s consent, provides good No. 15-cv-01489-LHK, 2015 WL 4760506, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2015) (granting motion to withdraw where “[firm] ceased operations, effectively terminating [counsel’s] employment and rendering [counsel] financially unable to continue to represent [client]”); Bumb v. Gobin, No. 25- cv-04729-SVK, 2025 WL 3128196, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2025) (citing Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(b)(6)) (explaining client consent “weighs in favor of granting withdrawal”). In addition, the Court finds Reid has complied with the requirements of Civil Local Rule 11-5(a) and the California Rules of Professional Conduct because Reid provided reasonable advance notice to Hoeppner-Cruz and Brower of his intention to withdraw as counsel of record and provided Hoeppner-Cruz time to obtain substitute counsel. See ECF No. 66. Therefore, based on this record, the Court finds good cause exists to permit Reid’s withdrawal. However, under the Local Rules, entities can only appear through licensed counsel. See Civ. L.R. 3-9(b) (“A corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or other such entity may appear only through a member of the bar of this Court.”); see C.E. Pope Equity Tr. v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697–98 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding trustee cannot present arguments pro se on behalf of trust in federal court). Under California law, a non-attorney trustee cannot represent a trust in a nonprobate general civil suit. Aulisio v. Bancroft, 230 Cal. App. 4th 1516, 1523 (2014); see Ziegler v. Nickel, 64 Cal. App. 4th 545, 549 (1998) (“A non-attorney trustee who represents the trust in court is representing and affecting the interests of the beneficiary and is thus engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.”). There is no information before the Court indicating that Hoeppner-Cruz is an attorney. Accordingly, based on the present record, it appears she cannot represent the Trust in this case. The Court therefore grants Reid’s motion to withdraw on the condition that he remain counsel of record pursuant to Civil Local Rule 11-5(b) to serve all filed documents on Hoeppner-Cruz until substitute counsel appears on her behalf. Hoeppner-Cruz must file a notice of appearance by new counsel or status report indicating that she has not found counsel by January 15, 2026. Hoeppner-Cruz is advised that failure to retain substitute counsel could result in dismissal of the case. Cf. Emp. Painters’ Trust v. Ethan Enters., Inc., 480 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming entry of default judgment where 2 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Reid’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel 3 for Hoeppner-Cruz, VACATES all pending dates in this case, STAYS the jury trial in this case, 4 DISCHARGES the show cause order at ECF No. 60, and DENIES as moot Hoeppner-Cruz’s Ex 5 Parte Motion at ECF No. 61. 6 Because no substitution of counsel has been filed on Hoeppner-Cruz’s behalf, the motion 7 to withdraw is granted on the condition that Reid remain counsel of record to serve all filed 8 documents on Hoeppner-Cruz until a substitution of counsel is filed. See Civ. L.R. 11-5(b). For 9 all such documents, Reid shall e-file proof of service within three business days of filing. Because 10 a non-attorney trustee may not appear on behalf of a trust except by counsel, Hoeppner-Cruz has 11 until January 15, 2026, to find substitute counsel. Hoeppner-Cruz is advised that failure to retain 12 substitute counsel could result in dismissal of the case. The Court ORDERS Hoeppner-Cruz to 13 file a notice of appearance by new counsel or status report indicating that she has not found 14 counsel by January 15, 2026. 3 15 The Court ORDERS Reid to provide a copy of this order to Hoeppner-Cruz and file an a 16 attestation to that effect no later than December 22, 2025. IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated: December 17, 2025 20 TAA. 1}-4— THOMAS S. HIXSON 21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28