From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sutton v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 20, 2012
No. CV 10-4563 SBA (N.D. Cal. Jun. 20, 2012)

Opinion

No. CV 10-4563 SBA

06-20-2012

SPENCER SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, POLICE OFFICER CHRISTOPHER M. MORRIS, in his individual and official capacities, POLICE OFFICER CRAIG L. LEONG, in his individual and official capacities, POLICE OFFICER STEVEN D. FERRAZ, in his individual and official capacities, and DOES 1-25, Jointly and Severally, Defendants.

DAVID M. HELBRAUN (SBN 129840) HELBRAUN LAW FIRM Attorneys for Plaintiff SPENCER SUTTON


DAVID M. HELBRAUN (SBN 129840)

HELBRAUN LAW FIRM

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SPENCER SUTTON

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

COUNSEL'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW

AND SEALING RECORD OF HEARING

The Motion to Withdraw as Plaintiff's Counsel filed by David M. Helbraun on April 10, 2012, came on for telephonic hearing at 1:15 p.m. on June 19, 2012, the Honorable U.S. District Court Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong presiding. A Statement of Non-Opposition was filed on behalf of defendants. Plaintiff Spencer Sutton submitted a later dated May 24, 2012, and a letter from David Barrett dated May 29, 2012, in opposition to the motion.

David M. Helbraun, Esq. appeared on behalf of himself, the moving party, via telephone. Mr. Sutton appeared by telephone. Mr. Sutton consented to discuss attorney-client privileged communications for the limited purpose of addressing issues raised by this Motion, and the Court indicated that the transcript of the hearing would be sealed based upon attorney-client confidentiality.

THE COURT, having read the parties' written statements, and having heard moving party's argument and the response of Plaintiff Spencer Sutton, and having considered and weighed the facts and issues presented,

THE COURT FINDS that good cause exists to grant the motion under California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-700(C) and the Civil Local Rules of the Northern District of California Rule 11-5, in that the attorney client relationship has irretrievably broken down.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED. The Court gives Plaintiff 60 days to locate new counsel. Current counsel will continue to receive filings for plaintiff and forward them to Plaintiff for the next 60 days, or until new counsel appears on Plaintiff's behalf.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the transcript of the record of the hearing on this motion is sealed and may not be obtained by anyone other than plaintiff and his counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________

HONORABLE SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Sutton v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 20, 2012
No. CV 10-4563 SBA (N.D. Cal. Jun. 20, 2012)
Case details for

Sutton v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco

Case Details

Full title:SPENCER SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, POLICE…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jun 20, 2012

Citations

No. CV 10-4563 SBA (N.D. Cal. Jun. 20, 2012)