Scott v. Thomson Reuters Corporation et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MEACHUN SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
v.
SMARTBIZ BANK, N.A., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-04103-RS
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiffs’ counsel, Devin H. Fok, has filed a motion seeking leave to withdraw. That the
attorney-client relationship has broken down such that withdrawal likely is warranted is
undisputable. Plaintiff has submitted documents entered on the court docket as “Motion to
Reinstate Court Processings” and subsequent briefing, not through counsel. Attorney Fok’s status
as attorney of record on the docket appears to have been terminated based on a phone call from
plaintiff. An attorney of record, however, cannot be relieved of his or her responsibilities merely
by a phone call to the court from the client. Thus, attorney Fok’s motion to withdraw is
appropriate, and until and unless it is granted, plaintiff’s pro se requests for other relief cannot be
addressed.
Attorney Fok’s motion asserts plaintiff Scott “ceased all communication with me as of
November 24, 2025. I have emailed her, called, and left voice messages. To date, Ms. Scott has
not responded to any of my requests for communication.” Plaintiff Scott, however, submitted
copies of what purports to be her communications with Fok as late as November 30, 2025.
Case 3:25-cv-04103-RS Document 34 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 3

CASE NO. 25-cv-04103-RS
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Scott purportedly wrote:
I take the previous email as you stepping down[.] Warmest regards.
Ms Scott[.] I will report this to the law bar. Requesting your
withdrawal[.] I really don't know who you are, but I know you have
still show[n] no proof you contacted these people. Anybody can
make they mouth say anything[,] that does not mean it is [so,] and so
far you a have not proved anything or sent any evidence of make
sure this is removed off my back ground[.]
Remove yourself off this case sir and send the
withdraw letter[.] This my last request !!!
Fok apparently responded:
Yes, please take my previous email as me stepping
down. Also, attached is the letter we sent out on your
behalf previously. Good luck with your case. You
should talk to your new firm about me. Most FCRA
practitioners in this space should know who I am.
See Dkt. No. 30, ECF p. 30.
Within one week of the date of this order, Attorney Fok shall state his position as to
whether the copies of the email correspondence dated November 30, 2025, are genuine. Unless
Attorney Fok disputes the authenticity of those emails, he shall show cause as to why (1) he did
not file a motion to withdraw until January 5, 2026, and (2) why he represented in that motion that
he had no communication with plaintiff after November 24, 2025.
Consideration of plaintiff’s pro se motion “Motion to Reinstate Court Processings,” will be
deferred pending a final decision on counsel’s motion to withdraw, but will in any event be
decided without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).
Case 3:25-cv-04103-RS Document 34 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 3

CASE NO. 25-cv-04103-RS
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 8, 2026
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
Chief United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-04103-RS Document 34 Filed 01/08/26 Page 3 of 3