United States of America, Plaintiff, v. LLP (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-20No. No. 19-17301

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's decision granting the law firm's motion to withdraw as counsel, finding no abuse of discretion where the clients received notice and reasonable time to secure new representation.

Michael and Karyl McNall appealed a district court decision in their False Claims Act qui tam case. The primary issue on appeal concerned whether the district court properly allowed their attorneys at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP to withdraw from representation. The McNalls argued this decision was an abuse of discretion, but the appellate court found no abuse because the firm provided adequate notice of its intent to withdraw and gave the McNalls sufficient time to locate replacement counsel.

The McNalls also sought to challenge the underlying dismissal of their action, but failed to present any arguments about this issue in their opening brief, thereby forfeiting the right to appeal that ruling. The court granted the law firm's motion to intervene in the appeal proceedings and denied the McNalls' request for additional time to file a reply brief as moot.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether district court abused discretion in granting attorney withdrawal motion
Adequacy of notice and time provided to clients to find replacement counsel
Waiver of arguments not raised in opening brief

Procedural posture

The McNalls appealed pro se from the district court's judgment in their qui tam action and order allowing their former counsel to withdraw.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM ***

Michael and Karyl McNall appeal pro se from the district courts judgment in their qui tam action alleging violations of the False Claims Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district courts ruling on an attorneys motion to withdraw. United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLPs (“CPM”) motion to withdraw as counsel for the McNalls because the McNalls were on notice that CPM wished to withdraw and were given a reasonable amount of time to find new counsel. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 11-5 (requirements for attorney withdrawal); Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16 (grounds for attorney withdrawal and requirement that counsel take “reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client” prior to withdrawal); Nehad v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying California Rules of Professional Conduct to attorney withdrawal).

The McNalls failed to include any argument in their opening brief regarding the district courts dismissal of their action, and thus have waived any challenge to that issue. See McKay v. Ingleson, 558 F.3d 888, 891 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009) (arguments not raised in an appellants opening brief are waived).

CPMs unopposed motion to intervene (Docket Entry No. 31-1) is granted. The Clerk will file CPMs response brief (Docket Entry No. 31-2) and CPMs excerpts of record (Docket Entry No. 33).

The McNalls’ request for an extension of time to file the reply brief, set forth in their reply in support of their motion for stay or extension of time (Docket Entry No. 43), is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.