Quality Loan Service Corp. v. United States

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 8, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-08899
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP., Case No. 5:24-cv-08899-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., [Re: Dkt. Nos. 40, 41] 11 Defendants.

12 13 Before the Court is the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record (“Motion”) filed by 14 attorneys Emily Blake (“Counsel Blake”) and Matthew B. Talbot (“Counsel Talbot”) of Talbot 15 Law Group PC (collectively “Counsel for Sands”), counsel of record for Stuart Sands (“Sands”). 16 Dkt. Nos. 40, 41. The Court finds this Motion suitable for determination without oral argument 17 and VACATES the hearing set for July 10, 2025. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the following reasons, 18 the Court GRANTS the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 This matter was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of 21 California on December 10, 2024. Dkt. No. 1. On March 26, 2025, Counsel Blake filed a Notice 22 of Appearance on behalf of Defendant Sands. Dkt. No. 24. On the same date, Counsel Blake also 23 filed Sands’ Answer and Claim to Funds. Dkt. No. 25. On May 30, 2025, the Court granted the 24 Parties’ Joint Motion and Stipulation to Distribute Interpleaded Funds and to Dismiss Action as 25 modified by the Court (“Joint Motion”). Dkt. No. 39. 26 On June 10, 2025, Counsel for Sands filed two Motions to Withdraw as Counsel of 27 Record. Dkt. Nos. 40, 41. Both motions were accompanied by a Proof of Service dated May 29, 1 mail. Dkt. No. 40 at 3–5; Dkt. No. 41 at 3–5. Counsel for Sands also submitted Sands’ contact 2 information, Dkt. No. 40 at 2; Dkt. No. 41 at 2, as well as supporting declarations stating that 3 Sands had indicated his intent to handle the matter pro se going forward and that Counsel for 4 Sands had advised Sands to consider retaining new legal representation if he determines in the 5 future that he needs assistance, Dkt. No. 40-1 at 2; Dkt. No. 41-1 at 2. On June 11, 2025, 6 Defendant United States filed its Response (Non-Opposition) to Motion to Withdraw, stating that 7 it does not object to Counsel for Sands’ withdrawal. Dkt. No. 42. Because the motions are 8 substantially identical, this Order resolves both motions simultaneously. 9 II. LEGAL STANDARD 10 “Counsel may not withdraw from an action until relieved by order of the Court after 11 written notice has been provided, reasonably in advance, to the client and to all other parties who 12 have appeared in the case.” Civ. L.R. 11-5(a). The decision to permit counsel to withdraw is 13 within the sound discretion of the trial court, United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th 14 Cir. 2009), and is governed by the State Bar of California’s standards of professional conduct, In 15 re Pers. Web Techs., LLC et al., Pat. Litig., No. 18-MD-02834, 2022 WL 2290592, at *3 (N.D. 16 Cal. June 24, 2022) (citation omitted). Accordingly, an attorney is required to take “reasonable 17 steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, such as giving the client 18 sufficient notice to permit the client to retain other counsel” before withdrawing. Cal. R. Prof. 19 Conduct 1.16(d). 20 Courts consider several factors when deciding a motion for withdrawal, including: “(1) the 21 reasons counsel seeks to withdraw; (2) the possible prejudice that withdrawal might cause to other 22 litigants; (3) the harm that withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the 23 extent to which withdrawal will delay resolution of the case.” In re Pers. Web Techs., 2022 WL 24 2290592, at *3. 25 III. DISCUSSION 26 The Court concludes that Counsel for Sands have provided sufficient reasons to justify 27 withdrawal. Under Rule 1.16(a)(4) of California’s standards of professional conduct, a lawyer 1 basis for the Motion, Counsel for Sands attached as Exhibit A an email from Sands in which he 2 states: “Given the latest status [of the case], I’ve decided to not continue with legal 3 representation.” Dkt. No. 40-1 at 4; Dkt. No. 41-1 at 4. In light of that notice from their client, 4 || Counsel for Sands states that “[w]ithdrawal is appropriate at this time as the client . . . has 5 expressed his desire to represent himself moving forward,” such that “[c]ontinued representation is 6 || no longer feasible and would not serve the interests of the client or the administration of justice.” 7 Dkt. No. 40 at 1-2; Dkt. No. 41 at 1-2. 8 Based on this evidence, the Court finds that withdrawal is appropriate. Moreover, all 9 Parties were served with copies of the Motion in a timely manner, see Dkt. No. 40 at 3-5; Dkt. 10 || No. 41 at 3-5, and the only other Party to file a response to the Motion expressly stated that it did 11 not object to withdrawal, Dkt. No. 42. Therefore, the Court finds there is little possible prejudice, 12 || if any, to other litigants in granting the Motion. Finally, withdrawal is unlikely to cause harm to 5 13 the administration of justice or to delay resolution of the case, because the Court has already 14 || granted the Joint Motion and Stipulation to Distribute Interpleaded Funds and to Dismiss Action 3 15 and will dismiss the lawsuit once notice is given that the funds at issue have been distributed. See a 16 || Dkt. No. 39 at 4. In short, all factors weigh in favor of granting Counsel for Sands’ Motion. 2 17 || IV. ORDER Z 18 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Counsel for Sands’ Motion to 19 || Withdraw as Counsel of Record is GRANTED. Counsel for Sands SHALL provide a copy of this 20 || Order to Sands. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: July 8, 2025

TH LABSON FREEMAN 26 United States District Judge 27 28