(PS) White v. City and County of West Sacramento ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBBIE D. WHITE, No. 2:20-cv-02383-MCE-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CITY AND COUNTY OF WEST SACRAMENTO, a local public entity; 15 et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Presently before the Court is a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record (ECF 19 No. 21) filed by Jason Sias and Sias Law, Inc. (collectively, “Counsel”), who represents 20 Plaintiff Robbie D. White (“Plaintiff”) in this matter, by which Counsel seeks to withdraw 21 leaving Plaintiff in propria persona.1 This Motion is governed by the requirements of 22 Eastern District of California Local Rule 182(d), which provides, among other things, that 23 an attorney may not withdraw, leaving the client in propria persona, absent a noticed 24 motion, appropriate affidavits, notice to the client and all other parties who have 25 appeared, and compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of 26 California. California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(6) permits a member of the 27 1 Having determined that oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this 28 Motion submitted on the briefs in accordance with Local Rule 230(g). 1 | State Bar to seek to withdraw from representation when “[t]he member believes in good 2 | faith... that the tribunal will find the existence of . . . good cause for withdrawal.” 3 | However, “[a] member shall not withdraw from employment until the member has taken 4 || reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, 5 | including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other 6 | counsel, ... and complying with applicable laws and rules.” Cal. R. of Professional 7 | Conduct 3-700(A)(2). Whether to grant leave to withdraw is subject to the sound 8 | discretion of the Court and “may be granted subject to such appropriate conditions as 9 | the Court deems fit.” E.D. Cal. Local R. 182(d); Canandaigua Wine Co.., Inc. v. Edwin 10 | Moldauer, No. 1:02-cv-06599 OWW DLB, 2009 WL 89141, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 11 | 2009). 12 Pursuant to the instant motion, Counsel has provided Plaintiff with a formal 13 | termination of representation letter along with an electronic case file that contained all 14 | files related to Plaintiff's case. Counsel has also been in contact with Plaintiff regarding 15 | Counsel's intent to file the instant motion. It appears from the papers, however, that 16 | Counsel failed to provide the Court with Plaintiff's last known address(es) in the affidavit 17 | Counsel submitted pursuant to Local Rule 182(d). Accordingly, the Court defers ruling 18 | on the Motion to give counsel the opportunity to supplement the record. Not later than 19 | five (5) days following the date this Order is electronically filed, Counsel is directed to file 20 | an affidavit complying with the mandates set forth in the local rules. 21 IT |S SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: September 3, 2021 Matw LEK ee NK 8 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28