Lal v. Enloe Medical Center ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Jessup Lal, No. 2:22-cv-01540-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Enloe Medical Center, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Sareela Lal’s attorney moves to withdraw as counsel. For the reasons below, the 18 | court denies counsel’s motion to withdraw. 19 | IT. BACKGROUND 20 Jessup Lal brought this employment action against defendants Enloe Medical Center and 21 | Angela Sidney in Butte County Superior Court. Compl., Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1-1. 22 | Defendants removed the case to this court. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. Shortly after the 23 | assigned magistrate judge scheduled the case, see Sched. Order, ECF No. 12, defendants notified 24 | the court that Mr. Lal had died, Notice of Death, ECF No. 18. Accordingly, the assigned 25 | magistrate judge modified the scheduling order and vacated the litigation schedule. Order (Apr. 26 | 26, 2023), ECF No. 20. 27 Mr. Lal’s surviving spouse and the special administrator of his estate, Sareela Lal, moved 28 | to be substituted as the proper party to proceed as plaintiff. Mot., ECF No. 21. At the same time, 1 plaintiff’s attorney moves to withdraw as counsel. Id. Defendants have filed a statement of non- 2 opposition. Statement, ECF No. 22. The court held a hearing on the matter on June 30, 2023. 3 Hr’g Mins., ECF No. 23. Angela Hooper appeared for plaintiff, and Sareela Lal was also present. 4 Douglas Ropel represented defendant. At the hearing, the court granted Ms. Hooper one week to 5 submit an in-camera declaration explaining why she should be relieved as counsel. Following the 6 hearing, the court granted Ms. Lal’s motion to substitute. Prior Order, ECF No. 24. 7 II. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL 8 Under this court’s local rules, an attorney may not withdraw as counsel leaving the client 9 in propria persona without leave of court. E.D. Cal. L.R. 182(d). Withdrawal is governed by the 10 Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California. Id. Under California Rule of 11 Professional Conduct 1.16, a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if at least one of ten 12 circumstances are present, including as relevant here, “the client by other conduct renders it 13 unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively[.]” Cal. R. Prof. 14 Conduct 1.16(b)(4). “The decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw is within the court’s 15 discretion.” Staychock v. Klean Kanteen, Inc., No, 17-1012, 2017 WL 6383603, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 16 Dec. 14, 2017) (citing United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009)). Courts 17 consider several factors, “including the reasons for withdrawal, possible prejudice to the client 18 and other litigants, harm to the administration of justice, and possible delay.” Id. (citation 19 omitted). 20 Plaintiff’s counsel, Angela Hooper, argues it would be unreasonably difficult to carry out 21 the representation effectively because Jessup Lal “has unfortunately passed away.” Mot. at 7. 22 Ms. Hooper’s declaration filed with the original motion offers no further meaningful insight into 23 the reasons for withdrawal, other than a need to withdraw “due to [Ms. Hooper’s] professional 24 considerations,” Hooper Decl. at 1, ECF No. 21-1, although this apparent omission was a result of 25 counsel’s “intent to disclose the minimum amount of information necessary to protect the 26 confidences of the client,” Mot. at 6. At the hearing, the court conducted an in-camera session 27 with Ms. Hooper and Ms. Lal. A week after the hearing, Ms. Hooper filed an in-camera 28 declaration explaining her reasons for withdrawal, which are omitted here to preserve confidential 1 and attorney-client privileged information. See Req. Seal, ECF No. 27; Prior Order (July 13, 2 2023), ECF No. 26; Sealed Event, ECF No. 28. After consideration of the full record, the court is 3 not persuaded that continued representation would be “unreasonably difficult,” as required by 4 California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(4). Ms. Hooper has been plaintiff’s counsel 5 since the lawsuit was commenced in state court. See Compl. at 4. Although Ms. Lal has 6 consented to counsel’s withdrawal, see Mot. at 7, all the other factors weigh against withdrawal 7 here: the administration of justice may be harmed given Ms. Lal would proceed without the 8 assistance of counsel, which in turn might result in delay, and Ms. Lal could be prejudiced by the 9 loss of representation. Counsel’s reasons provided in her motion, declaration and in-camera 10 declaration do not warrant withdrawal, and in fact suggest several reasons why withdrawal is not 11 supported at this stage, so the court denies the motion. 12 III. CONCLUSION 13 As explained above, the court denies counsel’s motion to withdraw. 14 This order resolves ECF No. 21. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 DATED: July 13, 2023.