NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
SEP 20 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL McNALL; KARYL McNALL, No. 19-17301
Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00889-LB
and
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