(PC) Rabb v. Figueroa ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAMEN D. RABB, Case No. 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE 12 OF COURT TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL v. OF RECORD FOR DAMEN D. RABB 13 ESTEVEN FIGUEROA, et al., ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 TO TERMINATE PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY Defendants. OF RECORD AND UPDATE PLAINTIFF’S 15 ADDRESS 16 (ECF Nos. 22, 25) 17 18 Currently before the Court is a motion by counsel Brian M. Pomerantz (“Counsel”) to 19 withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff Damen D. Rabb (“Plaintiff”). (ECF No. 22.) Having 20 considered the moving papers, the declaration attached thereto, the representations by Counsel at 21 the October 17, 2023 scheduling conference, as well as the Court’s file, the motion to withdraw 22 as counsel shall be granted. 23 I. 24 BACKGROUND 25 On June 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed this action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF 26 No. 1.) On October 16, 2023, Counsel filed a noticed motion to withdraw as the attorney for 27 Plaintiff. (ECF No. 22.) At the scheduling conference held on October 16, 2023, the Court discussed the motion with the parties, confirmed with Counsel that Plaintiff consented to the 1 withdrawal, and instructed the Defendants to file a response to Counsel’s motion. On October 2 18, 2023, Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition to Counsel’s motion to withdraw as 3 attorney. (ECF No. 25.) 4 II. 5 LEGAL STANDARD 6 Withdrawal of counsel is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar 7 of California, and the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern 8 District of California. See L.R. 182; L.S. ex rel. R.S. v. Panama Buena Vista Union Sch. Dist., 9 No. 1:12-CV-00744 LJO, 2012 WL 3236743, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2012). 10 The California Rules of Professional Conduct provide that if the rules of a court require 11 permission for an attorney to withdraw, the attorney may not withdraw from employment in a 12 proceeding without the permission of such court. Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(c). In addition, 13 counsel must take reasonable steps to avoid prejudicing the rights of the client, including 14 providing notice, allowing time for the client to employ other counsel, and complying with 15 applicable laws and rules. Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(d). Except for the requirement of Rule 16 1.16(c), an attorney shall withdraw from representation if “the client discharges the lawyer.” 17 Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(a)(4). 18 The Local Rules provide that an attorney who has appeared on behalf of a client may not 19 withdraw, leaving the client in propria persona, without leave of court upon noticed motion, 20 along with notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared. L.R. 182(d). The 21 attorney is also required to “provide an affidavit stating the current or last known address or 22 addresses of the client and the efforts made to notify the client of the motion to withdraw.” Id. 23 Likewise, California’s Rules of Court require notice of a motion to withdrawal to be served on 24 the client and other parties who have appeared in the action. Cal. R. Court 3.1362(d). 25 It is within the Court’s discretion whether to grant withdrawal. L.S. ex rel. R.S., 2012 26 WL 3236743, at *2 (citing Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, No. 1:02-CV-06599, 2009 27 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4238, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2009)). “Factors the Court may consider 1 harm caused to the administration of justice, and (4) delay to the resolution of the case caused by 2 withdrawal.” Id. (citing Canandaigua, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4238, at *4). Additionally, 3 “[l]eave to withdraw may be granted subject to such appropriate conditions as the Court deems 4 fit.” L.R. 182(d). 5 III. 6 DISCUSSION 7 In this instance, counsel has generally complied with the substantive and procedural 8 requirements for withdrawal in this matter.1 Based upon the representations by Counsel at the 9 October 16, 2023 scheduling conference and Defendants’ non-opposition to Counsel’s motion to 10 withdraw from representation (ECF No. 25), the Court finds sufficient grounds under the 11 California Rules of Professional Conduct to allow for Plaintiff’s Counsel to withdraw from 12 representation in this matter. Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(a)(4). 13 In exercising the Court’s discretion on this motion, “[f]actors the Court may consider 14 include: (1) the reasons for withdrawal, (2) prejudice that may be caused to other litigants, (3) 15 harm caused to the administration of justice, and (4) delay to the resolution of the case caused by 16 withdrawal.” L.S. ex rel. R.S., 2012 WL 3236743, at *2 (citing Canandaigua Wine, 2009 U.S. 17 Dist. LEXIS 4238, at *2). In consideration of these factors and the procedural posture of this 18 action, the Court finds the factors weigh in favor of granting the motion and that good cause 19 exists for withdrawal. 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 24 1 The Court notes that Counsel failed to provide, with specificity, Plaintiff’s current address in his declaration as required under Local Rule 182(d). In his declaration, Counsel simply stated Plaintiff “is currently incarcerated at 25 Kern Valley State Prison.” (ECF No. 22 at 3.) However, the Court notes that during the October 17, 2023 scheduling conference, the parties discussed potential consolidation of a related case by Plaintiff, case number 23- cv-01014-ADA-BAM, wherein Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The Court notes that the most recent entry on the 26 docket in case number 23-cv-01014-ADA-BAM is an updated address for Plaintiff at “P.O. Box 5102, Delano, CA 93216.” (See case number 23-cv-01014-ADA-BAM, ECF No. 14.) Based on the representations of Counsel at the 27 October 17, 2023 scheduling conference and his Declaration stating Plaintiff “is currently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison” (ECF No. 22 at 3), the Court incorporates the address for Plaintiff listed in case number 23-cv- 1 IV. 2 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 3 Counsel has generally complied with the procedural and substantive requirements set 4 | forth in the California Rules of Professional Conduct and the Local Rules in filing the motion to 5 | withdraw from representation of Plaintiffs and the Court finds the factors weigh in favor of 6 | granting the motion. Thus, the Court is acting within its discretion to grant the motion to 7 | withdraw. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. Counsel Brian M. Pomerantz’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record for 10 Plaintiff Brian M. Pomerantz (ECF No. 12), is GRANTED; 11 2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate Brian M. Pomerantz, of the 12 Law Offices of Brian M. Pomerantz, as attorney of record for Plaintiff Damen D. 13 Rabb in this action; and 14 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to update the docket to reflect the address 15 of Plaintiff Damen D. Rabb (P-82951) as Kern Valley State Prison, P.O. Box 16 5102, Delano, CA 93216, and serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff Damen D. 17 Rabb. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. ZC □□ | Dated: _ October 19, 2023 IF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28