MICHAEL MCNALL V. PACIFIC RET. SERVS., INC., No. 19-17301 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 20 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL McNALL; KARYL McNALL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-17301 D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00889-LB MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES, INC., an Oregon corporation; REHAB SPECIALISTS I, LLC, DBA Consonus Rehab Services, an Oregon corporation, Defendants-Appellees, COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP, Intervenor. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Laurel D. Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted September 14, 2021*** Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Michael and Karyl McNall appeal pro se from the district court’s 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 court’s ruling on an attorney’s 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, LLP’s (“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); ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 19-17301 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 court’s 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 appellant’s opening brief are waived). CPM’s unopposed motion to intervene (Docket Entry No. 31-1) is granted. The Clerk will file CPM’s response brief (Docket Entry No. 31-2) and CPM’s 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. 3 19-17301
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
