(PS) Johnson v. Lake Shastina Police Dept ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 POLLY JOHNSON, No. 2:19-CV-01193-MCE-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 LAKE SHASTINA POLICE DEPARTMENT, LAKE SHASTINA 15 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, a Municipal Corporation, RUSTY 16 OWENS, individually and as an Officer of the Lake Shastina Police 17 Department, MIKE WILSON, individually and as Chief of Police of 18 the Lake Shastina Police Department, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 Presently before the Court is a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (ECF No. 8) and 22 Defendants’ Response to Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff’s counsel, H.F. 23 Layton (“Counsel”), moves to withdraw after Plaintiff terminated his employment on 24 November 16, 2020, by which Plaintiff will remain in propria persona.1 This Motion is 25 governed by the requirements of Eastern District of California Local Rule 182(d), which 26 27 1 Having determined that oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this 28 Motion submitted on the briefing in accordance with Local Rule 230(g). 1 | provides, inter alia, that an attorney may not withdraw, leaving the client in propria 2 persona, absent a noticed motion, appropriate affidavits, notice to the client and all other 8 parties who have appeared, and compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California. Whether to grant leave to withdraw is subject to the sound 6 discretion of the Court and “may be granted subject to such appropriate conditions as 7 | the Court deems fit.” E.D. Cal. Local R. 182(d); Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. Edwin 8 || Moldauer, No. 1:02-cv-06599 OWW DLB, 2009 WL 89141, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 9 | 2009). 10 Counsel in the instant matter has provided an affidavit in support of withdrawal. " ECF No. 8. However, Counsel failed to set forth in that affidavit the specific “efforts made to notify the client of the motion to withdraw,” namely that it had been filed, thus 44 failing to conform to Eastern District of California Local Rule 182(d). In light of the 15 || foregoing, the Court hereby DEFERS ruling on the Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 8), 16 | allowing Counsel the opportunity to cure this deficiency. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: March 3, 2021 19 / 20 Aor, □□ a1 ONIED STAN URI T JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28