Gilbert v. Doctor's Choice Modesto LLC ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARREN GILBERT, Case No. 1:21-cv-00690-AWI-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND 13 v. SUBJECT TO FILING OF A NOTICED MOTION 14 DOCTOR’S CHOICE MODESTO LLC, et al., (ECF No. 40) 15 Defendants. 16 17 On March 24, 2022, Defendant Amar Kumar’s counsel, Lawrence T. Niermeyer, filed a 18 substitution of attorney form indicating that Amar Kumar has been substituted as new counsel, 19 for Amar Kumar. (ECF No. 40.) However, as indicated on the form by entering “none” in the 20 space for “State Bar No.,” Amar Kumar is not a licensed attorney in the State of California. It is 21 unclear why Defendant’s counsel presumed it to be proper to withdraw from the action in this 22 manner using such form. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(d), an attorney may not withdraw as 23 counsel and leave a party pro se without leave of Court upon noticed motion. L.R. 182(d). More 24 specifically, Local Rule 182(d) provides: 25 Unless otherwise provided herein, an attorney who has appeared may not withdraw leaving the client in propria persona without 26 leave of court upon noticed motion and notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared. The attorney shall provide an 27 affidavit stating the current or last known address or addresses of the client and the efforts made to notify the client of the motion to 1 Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, and the attorney shall conform to the requirements of those Rules. The 2 authority and duty of the attorney of record shall continue until relieved by order of the Court issued hereunder. Leave to 3 withdraw may be granted subject to such appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit. 4 5 | Id.; see also Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(A)(2); CE Res., Inc. v. Magellan Group, LLC, No. 2:08- 6 | cv-02999-MCE-KJM, 2009 WL 3367489, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2009); McClintic v. U.S. 7 | Postal Serv., No. 1:13-cv-00439, 2014 WL 51151, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2014). Therefore, the g | Court finds the instant request for substitution does not comply with the Local Rules or Rules of g | Professional Conduct and must therefore be denied, without prejudice. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the substitution of attorney (ECF No. 40), is 11 | DENIED without prejudice to re-filing as a properly-noticed motion to withdraw pursuant to the 12 | Local Rules and Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Af 15 | Dated: _March 25, 2022 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28