Tsi Akim Maidu of Taylorsville Rancheria v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TSI AKIM MAIDU OF TAYLORSVILLE No. 2:17-cv-01156-TLN-CKD RANCHERIA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 15 THE INTERIOR, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 This matter is before the Court on Roia Shefayee’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for 20 Plaintiff Tsi Akim Maidu of Taylorsville Rancheria (“Plaintiff”). (ECF No. 48.) No opposition 21 has been filed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Ms. Shefayee’s motion. 22 The local rules of this district require an attorney who would withdraw and leave his or 23 her client without representation to obtain leave of court upon a noticed motion. E.D. Cal. L.R. 24 182(d). Local Rule 182(d) also requires an attorney to provide notice to the client and all other 25 parties who have appeared, and an affidavit stating the current or last known address of the client. 26 Id. Finally, to comply with Local Rule 182(d), the attorney must conform to the requirements of 27 the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Id. 28 /// 1 The decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw is within a court’s discretion. 2 McNally v. Eye Dog Found. for the Blind, Inc., No. 09-cv-AWI-SKO-01174, 2011 WL 1087117, 3 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2011). District courts within this circuit have considered several factors 4 when evaluating a motion to withdraw, including the reason for withdrawal, prejudice to the 5 client, prejudice to the other litigants, harm to the administration of justice, and possible delay. 6 See, e.g., Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. 09-cv-01643-SBA, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010); CE Res., Inc. v. Magellan Group, LLC, No. 08-cv-02999-MCE-KJM, 8 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2009); Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 07-cv- 9 00594-WQH-NLS, 2008 WL 410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008). 10 Ms. Shefayee states that on May 12, 2020, Plaintiff informed her that it has retained new 11 counsel, John Peebles. (ECF No. 48 at 2.) Ms. Shefayee states she reached out to Mr. Peebles 12 and Plaintiff about the new counsel’s appearance, but her communications to Plaintiff were not 13 answered and Mr. Peebles is intentionally delaying appearing. (Id.) Ms. Shefayee also asserts 14 Plaintiff explicitly informed her that she was to provide no further work in this case, and she has 15 not communicated with Plaintiff since May 12, 2020. (Id.) 16 Ms. Shefayee moves to withdraw pursuant to California Rules of Professional Conduct 3- 17 700. (Id.) California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d) allows for withdrawal when a 18 client’s conduct “renders it unreasonably difficult for [counsel] to carry out the employment 19 effectively.” Here, Plaintiff explicitly directed Ms. Shefayee to cease working on this case, 20 informed her it had retained new counsel, and stopped communicating with her after May 12, 21 2020. Ms. Shefayee argues that without Plaintiff’s authorization, communication, and 22 cooperation, she cannot provide proper representation. (Id.) The Court agrees. Absent any 23 evidence or argument to the contrary, the Court concludes Plaintiff has rendered it unreasonably 24 difficult for Ms. Shefayee to proceed as counsel. Therefore, the Court finds there is good cause 25 for Ms. Shefayee to withdraw. 26 The Court also finds there is a low risk of prejudice if the motion is granted. Plaintiff has 27 made it clear that it wishes to retain new counsel. Further, Defendants have not filed any 28 opposition to this motion. As such, the risk of prejudice to Plaintiff and the other litigants is 1 minimal. Lastly, the Court cannot identify any harm to the administration of justice or possible 2 delay that would result from granting Ms. Shefayee’s motion to withdraw. 3 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Withdraw. (ECF 4 No. 48.) The Court notes that Ms. Shefayee failed to provide the Court with Plaintiff’s current or 5 last known address as required by Local Rule 182(d). Therefore, Ms. Shefayee is ordered to 6 serve Plaintiff with this Order. Ms. Shefayee shall file within seven (7) days of this Order a proof 7 of service with Plaintiff’s address. Additionally, Local Rule 183(a) states “[a] corporation or 8 other entity may appear only by an attorney.” Because Plaintiff is a Native American tribe and 9 not an individual, Plaintiff is barred from appearing in propria persona. Accordingly, Plaintiff has 10 thirty (30) days from the entry of this Order to acquire new representation and file a notice of 11 appearance by new counsel. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 DATED: August 10, 2020 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28