Saavedra v. Mackey ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Mary Saavedra, No. 2:21-cev-01587-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Riddell Mackey, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Attorney David Serrano and the law firm of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP move 18 | to withdraw as counsel for defendant Jeffrey DeGroot. ECF No. 35. Communications between 19 | Serrano and DeGroot have broken down, and Serrano believes that continuing the representation 20 | may result in violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Serrano Decl. ¥ 4, ECF No. 35-2. 21 | Serrano also cites potential conflicts of interest. See id. Plaintiff Mary Saavedra initially opposed 22 | the motion, ECF No. 36, but upon receipt of further information from Serrano, and after his reply 23 | was filed, ECF No. 38, Saavedra withdrew her opposition, ECF No. 41. 24 If withdrawal would leave a client in propria persona, as it would in this case, Local Rule 25 | 182(d) requires the withdrawing person to seek leave of court, file a formal motion, and provide 26 | notice of the withdrawal to the client and all other parties who have appeared. The attorney must 27 | provide an affidavit stating the efforts made to notify the client of the motion to withdraw, 28 | L.R. 182(d), and “take[ ] reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights 1 | of the client.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(d). The court considers whether there is good cause for 2 | withdrawal. Johnson vy. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., No. 09-502, 2009 WL 2447705, at *1 3 | (ED. Cal. Aug. 7, 2009). The court weighs possible prejudices to the client and other litigants, 4 | the administration of justice, and any possible delay. Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, 5 | No. 09-01643, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010) (citation omitted). The 6 | decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw is a matter of discretion. United States v. Carter, 7 | 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009). 8 Serrano has complied with the local rules and has shown there is good cause for 9 | withdrawal. An attorney may withdraw under the California Rules of Professional Conduct if the 10 | representation will likely result in violation of those rules or the State Bar Act. Cal. R. Prof?! 11 | Conduct 1.16(a)(2), (b)(9). Withdrawal will not unduly delay this action. Discovery is not 12 | scheduled to close for several more months. See Mins., ECF No. 30. Serrano has also 13 | undertaken appropriate measures to ensure opposing counsel and DeGroot have received 14 | discovery materials and other information about the case. See Reply at 3. 15 The motion to withdraw (ECF No. 35) is granted. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 DATED: March 30, 2023. [\ (] 18 l tied { q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45