Brown v. Tromba ( 2023 )

MICHAEL J. MCAVOYAMAYA, ESQ. (14082) 1 TIMOTHY E. REVERO, ESQ (14603) 2 MCAVOY AMAYA & REVERO, ATTORNEYS 600 S. 8th Street, 3 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: 702.299.5083 4 Facsimile: 702.995.7137 5 Mike@mrlawlv.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Marlon Brown 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 MARLON LORENZO BROWN, Case No.: 2:17-cv-02396-APG-BNW 10 11 PLAINTIFF, 12 VS. 13 DANTE TROMBA; ET AL. MOTION TO WITHDRAW 14 DEFENDANTS. 15 16 17 COME NOW, Defendant, MARLON BROWN, by and through his attorney of 18 record, TIMOTHY E. REVERO, ESQ. and MICHAEL J. MCAVOYAMAYA, of McAvoy 19 Amaya & Revero, Attorneys, and hereby files this Motion to Withdrawal as Counsel of 20 record pursuant to Nevada Supreme Court Rule 46, Nevada Rules of Professional 21 Conduct 1.16(b)(1)(5)(6) and EDCR 7.40 and hereby moves this Honorable Court to allow 22 the attorneys and law firm of MCAVOY AMAYA & REVERO ATTORNEYS to withdraw as 23 attorneys of record for Defendant MARLON BROWN. 24 … 25 … 26 … 27 … 28 1 This Motion is based upon and supported by the following Memorandum of Points 2 and Authorities, the pleadings and papers on file, the affidavit and exhibits attached 3 hereto, and any argument that this Honorable Court may allow at the time of the hearing. 4 DATED this 29th day of November, 2022. 5 6 /s/ Michael J. Mcavoyamaya MICHAEL J. MCAVOYAMAYA, ESQ. 7 Nevada Bar No.: 14082 600 S. 8th Street 8 Las Vegas, Nevada 89121 Telephone: (702) 299-5083 9 mike@mrlawlv.com 10 Attorney for Plaintiff 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1 2 I. ARGUMENT. Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.16(b)(5) provides that an attorney 3 may withdraw from representation a client if “[t]he client fails to substantially fulfill an 4 obligation to the lawyers regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable 5 warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled.” Here, Defendant 6 has repeatedly ignored counsel’s directives to discontinue filing cases intersecting with 7 the claims in this case before other courts and this Court. As this Court is aware, Plaintiff 8 has filed numerous cases involving the same issues including in case numbers 2:18-cv- 9 00165-KJD-NJK and 2:19-cv-01350-APG-DJA. Ultimately, this Court consolidated this 10 case with 2:19-cv-01350-APG-DJA after counsel entered the case in representation of 11 Plaintiff. See ECF No. 83. Counsel had intended to represent Plaintiff in the federal 12 habeas petition that needed to be filed after his habeas petition in the Nevada Supreme 13 Court was denied and Plaintiff had exhausted all his remedies. This was preferential so 14 that counsel could insure that matters raised in that petition did not intersect or conflict 15 with claims in this case so that both matters could proceed. However, Plaintiff chose to 16 once again file a case on his own, over the advice of counsel, and has raised claims 17 involving the same issues that are proceeding in this case. See Brown Pro-Se Pet. Habeas 18 Corpus, attached as Exhibit 1, at 8-11; see also 3:23-cv-00148-RCJ-CLB, ECF No. 8. 19 On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff and counsel discussed this case and the fact that 20 the habeas petition he filed now intersects with the issues in this case. Plaintiff indicated 21 that he believed that this case would now need to be stayed or dismissed without prejudice 22 pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994) 23 because he is raising the issue of his illegal pretrial detention as a claim to invalidate his 24 conviction in the new habeas case. Given that Plaintiff has decided to bring essentially the 25 same claims in the petition for habeas corpus as he has in this case and seeking the remedy 26 of invalidating his conviction, undersigned counsel informed Plaintiff that he believed it 27 28 1 would be best if counsel withdraws from this case given that there is now an irreconcilable 2 conflict between Plaintiff and counsel on whether this matter may or should proceed. 3 Plaintiff’s view of the issues in this case and their affect on his conviction have 4 deviated from counsel’s position argued in response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 5 See ECF No. 116, at 20:19-24. Defendants argued that “claims of false evidence, perjury, 6 and a lack of probable cause for a bond revocation are subject to the Heck favorable 7 termination rule.” Id. citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 8 2d 383 (1994). In response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, counsel argued, on 9 Plaintiff’s behalf, that “Heck applies only to challenges to convictions or a sentence 10 resulting from a conviction” and that “Brown does not challenge the validity of his 11 conviction or sentence in his criminal case.” See ECF No. 119, at 23:6-27. Counsel argued 12 that “Brown instead challenges the validity of his continued pre-trial, pre-conviction, and 13 pre-sentence confinement without bail and all damages that have resulted from it,” and 14 that these claims did not implicate the validity of his conviction triggering a bar pursuant 15 to Heck. Id. Plaintiff is now insisting on pursuing the illegal pretrial detention issues pro- 16 se in the habeas case and seeking the remedy of invalidating his conviction, which the 17 undersigned now believes likely bars the claims in this case under Heck unless the 18 conviction is invalidated. Indeed, Brown’s new federal habeas petition expressly alleges 19 that his pretrial arrest while on bond by Tromba and other LVMPD officers, and the 20 “Fraud on the Court” via the forward dated the custody record, which is the cornerstone 21 of the remaining judicial deception claim in this case, affects the validity of his conviction. 22 See Ex. 1, at 8-10. Plaintiff’s position on this issue presents an irreconcilable conflict 23 between counsel and Plaintiff regarding counsel’s representation in this case, and 24 whether the case should even proceed at all. Plaintiff indicated that he understood these 25 issues, intends to file a motion in this case on the Heck issue pro-se, and does not object 26 to counsel’s withdrawal from this case. 27 “When an attorney seeks leave from the court to withdraw from a case ‘in the 28 absence of the client's consent,’ the attorney must show that ‘justifiable cause’ exists to do 1 so.” Harris v. Diamond Dolls of Nev., LLC, No. 3:19-cv-00598-RCJ-CBC, 2023 U.S. Dist. 2 LEXIS 166041, at *7 (D. Nev. Sep. 18, 2023). When considering a motion to withdraw as 3 counsel, the Court must consider several factors including: “(1) the reasons for 4 withdrawal, (2) prejudice that may be caused to other litigants, (3) harm caused to the 5 administration of justice, and (4) delay to the resolution of the case." Id. see also Gilbert 6 v. Doctor's Choice Modesto, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-00690-AWI-SAB, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7 161372, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 7, 2022). This is not a terribly demanding standard. Id. 8 Notably, here, Plaintiff has consented to counsel’s withdraw from the case and 9 counsel is informed and believes that he will not be filing any opposition to the 10 withdrawal. Counsel has sufficient reasons for withdrawing from this case given that 11 Plaintiff is insisting on proceeding pro-se on the same claims challenging his conviction 12 in his habeas case. Defendants counsel has also indicated that they do not oppose 13 counsel’s withdrawal, indicating that they are not prejudiced by the withdrawal. There 14 will be no delay in resolution of this case given that discovery is still open and not set to 15 close until March 4, 2024, giving the parties four months to conduct discovery should it 16 be needed. Further, counsel is informed and believes that Plaintiff will be filing a pro-se 17 motion seeking to stay the case, or dismiss it without prejudice pursuant to Heck in light 18 of his pending habeas case. Should Plaintiff file such a motion, resolution of this case 19 would be expedited by counsel’s withdraw, not delayed. 20 … 21 … 22 … 23 … 24 … 25 … 26 … 27 … 28 1 As such, pursuant to Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.16(b)(5) and (6), 2 || Nevada Supreme Court Rule 46 and Local Rule IA 11-6 undersigned counsel moves t 3 || withdraw from representation in this case. ; CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned requests that this Court grant hi ° || motion to withdrawal as counsel of record. DATED this 29 day of November, 2023. 8 /s/ Michael J. Mcavoyamaya 9 MICHAEL J. MCAVOYAMAYA, ESQ. Nevada Bar No.: 14082 600 S. 8th Street 11 Las Vegas, Nevada 89121 Telephone: (702) 299-5083 1D mike@mrlawlv.com Attorney for Plaintiff 13 14 Good cause being found, the Court grants Plaintiff's counsel's motion to 15 withdraw (ECF No. 131). Counsel shall file proof of service of this order on 1 Plaintiff within fourteen (14) days of its entry. 17 It is Further Ordered that Plaintiff shall file notice with the Court within thirty (30) days of receiving notice of this order whether he intends to associate new 18 counsel or proceed pro se. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED DATED: 7:03 am, December 01, 2023 22 Gua Les WORD, BRENDA WEKSLER 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28