Mission Creek Band of Mission of Indians et al v. Sally Jewell et al

Filing 77

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS 73 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. For the reasons above, the Court rules, as follows: 1. Maddox shall serve this Order on its clients and file a proof of service of the same before February 28, 2018; 2. Maddox may move to withdraw, as outlined above, before March 2,2018; and 3. Should Maddox fail to move to withdraw before March 2, 2018, the Court will issue another briefing schedule. IT IS SO ORDERED. (lom)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

MISSION CREEK BAND OF MISSION

12

INDIANS, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT

v.

PREJUDICE, MOTION TO

RYAN ZINKE, ET AL.; and DOES 1–10,
Defendants.

16

Case No. 5:16-cv-00569-ODW(SPx)

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFFS [73]

17
18

On February 13, 2018, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Maddox | Isaacson | Cisneros LLP

19

(“Maddox”), moved for leave to withdraw as counsel in this case governed by the

20

Administrative Procedure Act. (Mot., ECF No. 73.) Maddox seeks to withdraw

21

because it has been unable to effectively communicate with its clients, rendering it

22

unable to continue its representation and prepare a motion for summary judgment.

23

(Mot. 4.)

24

I.

MOTION TO WITHDRAW

25

Maddox relies on California Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 3-700(C)(1)(d),

26

which provides for permissive withdrawal of counsel where the client, “renders it

27

difficult to carry out the employment effectively….”

28

Central District Local Rule 83-2.3 provides:

5

An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of
court. A motion for leave to withdraw must be made upon
written notice given reasonably in advance to the client and
to all other parties who have appeared in the action. The
motion for leave to withdraw must be supported by good
cause. Failure of the client to pay agreed compensation is
not necessarily sufficient to establish good cause.

6

It also provides that where an attorney represents an organization of any kind, the

7

attorney “must give written notice to the organization of the consequences of its

8

inability to appear pro se.” C.D. L.R. 83-2.3.4. This notice requirement is derivative

9

of Local Rule 83-2.2.2, which provides: “No organization or entity of any other kind

10

(including corporations, limited liability corporations, partnerships, limited liability

11

partnerships, unincorporated associations, trusts) may appear in any action or

12

proceeding unless represented by an attorney permitted to practice before this Court

13

under L.R. 83-2.1.” (emphasis added).

1
2
3
4

14

In his declaration, Plaintiffs’ counsel testifies that he “provided notice to each

15

Plaintiff that this Motion would be filed on February 12, 2018.” (Decl. of Norberto

16

Cisneros (“Cisneros Decl.”) ¶ 5.) On February 15, 2018, Maddox filed a certificate of

17

service indicating that it served its motion on “Sherry Livingston and Tony Lopez

18

Mission Creek Band of Mission Indians,” Desiree Salinas, and Carlos Salinas. (Cert.

19

of Serv., ECF No. 75.) The remaining plaintiffs include: Mission Creek Band of

20

Mission Indians, Toney Lopez, III, Desiree Salinas, and Carlos Salinas.1

21

Cisneros Declaration does not explain that counsel notified his client, Mission Creek

22

Band of Mission Indians, that it was subject to Local Rule 83-2.2.2, or that it would be

23

required to retain new counsel to continue with this action.

The

24

In addition to the deficiency concerning notice to Mission Creek Band of

25

Mission Indians, Cisneros fails to detail the factual basis for withdrawal in his

26

declaration; instead, the only details regarding his inability to effectively represent his

27
28

1

On January 19, 2018, the Court dismissed plaintiff Gabriela Lyles without prejudice on stipulation
of the parties. (Order, ECF No. 70.)

2

1

clients appear in the memorandum of points and authorities accompanying this

2

Motion. Maddox must set forth the factual basis for withdrawal in a declaration made

3

under penalty of perjury. The Court is mindful of the attorney-client privilege, and

4

does not imply that counsel should set forth the basis in detail, but an argument in

5

briefing without a declaration from counsel is insufficient. Accordingly, the Court

6

DENIES Maddox’s Motion, without prejudice.
II.

7

PENDING DATES AND DEADLINES

8

On January 31, 2018, the Court continued the briefing schedule relating to the

9

parties’ anticipated dispositive motions. (Order, ECF No. 72.) Plaintiffs’ deadline to

10

move for summary judgment is March 2, 2018. (Id.) Given Maddox’s desire to

11

withdraw and the impending deadline to file a motion for summary judgment, the

12

Court VACATES the current briefing schedule. (Id.) If Maddox wishes to withdraw

13

as counsel, it must move to withdraw under the parameters set forth above, and before

14

March 2, 2018. Should Maddox fail to do so, the Court will reinstate a revised

15

briefing schedule.
III.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the Court rules, as follows:
1. Maddox shall serve this Order on its clients and file a proof of service of
the same before February 28, 2018;
2. Maddox may move to withdraw, as outlined above, before March 2,
2018; and
3. Should Maddox fail to move to withdraw before March 2, 2018, the
Court will issue another briefing schedule.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

February 20, 2018

26
27
28

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3