Opinion
Case No. C 07-02780-SI.
September 21, 2007
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS TO RELIEVE COUNSEL
On September 21, 2007 the Court heard argument on plaintiffs' motions to relieve counsel. Having considered the arguments of counsel and the papers submitted, the Court GRANTS the motions in part and DENIES the motions in part.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs have submitted to the court two motions to relieve counsel. The first, filed on July 20, 2007, sought to relieve attorneys Patrick Kitchen and Daniel Feder as counsel to plaintiff Ann Otsuka. The second, filed the same day, sought to relieve Feder as counsel to plaintiffs Janis Keefe, Corinne Phipps, and Justin Kiser. Defendant does not oppose the motions. However, Otsuka, represented by Feder, filed a notice of conditional non-opposition, requesting that the Court deny the first motion with respect to Feder.
The Court is thus presented with a situation where the four named plaintiffs were represented by two attorneys when they filed their complaint, but where three of those plaintiffs (Keefe, Phipps, and Kiser) now seek to be represented only by one of those attorneys (Kitchin) and the fourth plaintiff (Otsuka) seeks to be represented only by the other (Feder). All parties who have appeared in this case, and both relevant attorneys, consent to the new proposed arrangement.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, and for cause shown, the motion to relieve Daniel Feder as counsel to Janis Keefe, Corinne Phipps, and Justin Kiser should be GRANTED (Docket No. 17), and the motion to relieve Daniel Feder and Patrick Kitchin as counsel to Ann Otsuka should be GRANTED with respect to Patrick Kitchin and DENIED with respect to Daniel Feder (Docket No. 18). The Court will consider issues related to class certification, the adequacy of class representation, and the adequacy of class counsel at an appropriate time in the future.