(PC) Rico v. Ducart ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Jorge Andrade Rico, No. 2:19-cv-01989-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Clark E. Ducart, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 After the court denied their motion to withdraw without prejudice, Prior Order, ECF No. 18 | 63, Shawna L. Ballard, Brian C. Baran, and Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, 19 | counsel of record for plaintiff Jorge Andrade Rico, renewed their motion for leave to withdraw as 20 | counsel, Mot. ECF No. 65. Movants also request an amendment to the briefing schedule to 21 | provide plaintiff with an opportunity to file a supplemental brief if the court grants their motion. 22 | “Defendants take no position on the withdrawal motion and do not oppose the requested 23 | supplemental briefing.” Mot. at 3.! The court takes the matter under submission without holding 24 | a hearing and grants the motion. 25 Under Local Rule 182(d), if withdrawal would leave a client in propria persona, as it 26 | would in this case, the withdrawing person must seek leave of court, file a formal motion and ' When citing page numbers on filings, the court uses the pagination automatically generated by the CM/ECF system. 1 provide notice of the withdrawal to the client and all other parties who have appeared. E.D. Cal. 2 L.R. 182(d). The attorney must provide an affidavit stating the efforts made to notify the client of 3 the motion to withdraw, id., and “take[ ] reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable 4 prejudice to the rights of the client[.]” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(d). The California Rule of 5 Professional Conduct 1.16 provides several grounds upon which an attorney may seek to 6 withdraw. Id. 7 The decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw is a matter of discretion. United 8 States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009). Courts consider several factors when 9 evaluating a motion to withdraw, including the reasons for withdrawal, possible prejudice to the 10 client and other litigants, harm to the administration of justice and possible delay. Deal v. 11 Countrywide Home Loans, No. 09-01643, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010) 12 (citation omitted). Here, movants have established good cause for withdrawal and have complied 13 with the applicable local rules and rules of professional conduct. 14 First, movants have now established good cause to withdraw. Movants seek to withdraw 15 because plaintiff’s “conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the 16 representation effectively.” Mot. at 4 (quoting Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(b)(4)). Without 17 violating their duty of confidentiality, movants generally explain plaintiff “has made allegations 18 of professional negligence and misconduct against RJLF and its attorneys,” and those allegations 19 “have led to a breakdown in communication such that [movants] are unable to effectively 20 maintain the attorney-client relationship moving forward.” Ballard Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 65-1; see 21 Baran Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 65-2. Moreover, those allegations “risk creating a conflict of interest” 22 between movants and plaintiff. Id. A breakdown in communication between client and attorney 23 may constitute good cause for withdrawal. China Cent. Television v. Create New Tech. HK Ltd., 24 No. 15-01869, 2015 WL 12826457, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2015). The attorney-client 25 relationship cannot be maintained where there is an irremediable breakdown such that counsel 26 can no longer effectively represent plaintiff. See Gong v. City of Alameda, No. 03-05495, 2008 27 WL 160964, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008) (granting motion to withdraw because “attorney-client 1 relationship [had] obviously broken down, making it unreasonably difficult for [counsel] to 2 continue representing Plaintiffs”) 3 Second, movants have also complied with California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16, 4 which requires the withdrawing attorney to “take[ ] reasonable steps to avoid reasonably 5 foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client[.]” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(d). Movants have 6 notified plaintiff of their intent to withdraw. See Ballard Decl. ¶¶ 4–5; Baran Decl. ¶¶ 4–5. They 7 have timely responded to defendants’ pending motion to dismiss and plaintiff has no other 8 outstanding deadlines. See Mot. at 5; see also Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 57. They have 9 also conferred with defendants prior to filing their current motion. Mot. at 3. Finally, because 10 defendants do not take any position on the motion to withdraw and do not oppose any additional 11 supplemental briefing period as to their pending motion to dismiss, the court finds withdrawal 12 would not prejudice defendants or cause undue delay. The court is satisfied movants have 13 complied with the requirements of Local Rule 182(d). 14 For the reasons above, the court grants the motion to withdraw. The court also finds 15 good cause to amend the briefing schedule as to the pending motion to dismiss. Within thirty 16 (30) days of receiving a copy of this order, plaintiff shall inform the court: 1) whether plaintiff 17 intends to obtain new counsel or proceed pro se and 2) whether plaintiff seeks to file a 18 supplemental opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. If plaintiff fails to provide notice, the 19 pending motion to dismiss shall be submitted without additional briefing. If plaintiff notifies the 20 court of his intention to file a supplemental opposition, plaintiff shall have an additional thirty 21 (30) days to file his opposition. Defendants may file a supplemental reply within seven (7) days 22 of any such supplemental opposition. 23 The hearing set for November 3, 2023, is vacated. Movants are directed to serve plaintiff 24 a copy of this order and file proof of service with the court within seven (7) days. Counsel must 25 comply with all obligations under California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(e) regarding 26 release of a client’s papers and property and return of unearned fees and must also file proof of 27 compliance with the court within seven (7) days. 28 This order resolves ECF No. 65. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 DATED: September 22, 2023. 3 4 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE