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

Filing 80

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS 78 ; AND ORDERING PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The Court rules, as follows: 1. The Court preliminarily GRANTS Maddox's Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 78); 2. Ma ddox shall serve this Order on its former clients, provide their last known addresses to the Court, and file a proof of service of the same before March 9, 2018; 3. Mission Creek Band of Mission Indians shall obtain new counsel, or SHOW CAUSE, in wri ting, why it should not be required to do so, on, or before, March 30, 2018; 4. The Individual Plaintiffs shall obtain new counsel or affirmatively submit to the Court that they intend to proceed pro se, on or before March 30, 2018. 5. After March 30, 2018, the Court will evaluate Mission Creek Band of Indians and the Individual Plaintiffs submissions, if any, and relieve Maddox as counsel of record, at that time. (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

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

12

INDIANS, ET AL.,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

v.

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFFS [78]; AND ORDERING

RYAN ZINKE, ET AL.; and DOES 1–10,

PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendants.

17
18

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

19

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

20

by the Administrative Procedure Act. (ECF No. 73.) The Court denied Maddox’s

21

first Motion to withdraw because it did not adequately notify its clients of its intent to

22

withdraw, and the consequences, if the Court granted the motion. (See Order, ECF

23

No. 77.) As part of its prior Order, the Court also vacated the briefing schedule. (Id.)

24

On February 28, 2018, Maddox moved to withdraw again. (Mot., ECF No. 78.) For

25

the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Maddox’s Motion to Withdraw, subject to the

26

constraints discussed below.

27
28

I.

1

MOTION TO WITHDRAW

2

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

3

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

4

difficult to carry out the employment effectively….”

5
6
7
8
9
10

Central District Local Rule 83-2.3 provides:
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.

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

under L.R. 83-2.1.” (emphasis added).

19

In his declaration, Plaintiffs’ counsel testifies that he notified his clients of the

20

Court’s prior Order, Maddox’s intent to withdraw as counsel, and the Court’s position

21

that Mission Creek Band of Mission Indians would be required to retain counsel to

22

continue to prosecute this action. (Decl. of Norberto Cisneros (“Cisneros Decl.”)

23

¶¶ 9–12, ECF No. 78.) He also explains the factual basis for Maddox’s withdrawal.

24

(Id. ¶ 8 (“These problems with communication include [Maddox’s] authority to

25

represent the client(s); though we have attempted to deal with the issue, the client(s)

26

have failed to respond to repeated attempts to resolve, or to respond in any substantive

27

answer”.).

28

2

1

Maddox also notes that it advised its clients that certain courts have allowed

2

Indian tribes to appear pro se. See Fraass Survival Sys. v. Absentee Shawnee Econ.

3

Dev. Auth., 817 F. Supp. 7, 10 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (noting that, “Indian tribal

4

governments and their agencies do not fit well under the general rule against pro se

5

representation by non-individuals for several reasons.”). There is conflicting authority

6

on this issue, and none of it is controlling on this Court.

7

In Unalachtigo Band of Nanticoke-Lenni Lenape Nation v. New Jersey, the

8

district court distinguished Fraass by noting that, in its case, the Indian tribe was not

9

federally recognized, in contrast to the tribe in Fraass. No. CIV. A. 05-5710, 2007

10

WL 4547501, at *4 (D.N.J. Dec. 17, 2007).

11

Mission Indians is not a federally-recognized tribe. This is an issue that the Mission

12

Creek Band of Mission Indians will need to address. However, Maddox has satisfied

13

the Court that it gave its clients proper notice of the consequences of its withdrawal,

14

and that the attorney-client relationship has deteriorated to the point that

15

representation is no longer feasible. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Maddox’s

16

Motion (ECF No. 78), but its withdrawal will not be complete until the follow occurs:

17
18

Similarly, Mission Creek Band of

1. The Court ORDERS Maddox to serve this Order on its clients before
March 9, 2018, and file a proof of service reflecting the same;

19

2. Maddox must provide the last known address of its former clients to the

20

Court so that they may be notified of actions in this case in the future;

21

and

22
23
24

3. Maddox’s withdrawal will be complete after Plaintiffs’ response to the
Court’s Order to Show Cause, set forth in detail below.
II.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

25

Like in Unalachtigo, Mission Creek Band of Mission Indians is not federally

26

recognized. See 2007 WL 4547501, at *4. Indeed, that fact underlies this entire

27

action, in which Mission Creek Band of Mission Indians seeks to obtain recognition

28

by the federal government.

In light of this, the reasoning in Unalachtigo is

3

1

persuasive. Id. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Mission Creek Band of Mission

2

Indians to obtain counsel, on, or before, March 30, 2018. Alternatively, and to the

3

extent Mission Creek Band of Mission Indians contends it should not be required to

4

obtain counsel, it may SHOW CAUSE, in writing and by the same date, why it does

5

not fall within Central District Local Rule 83-2.2.2, and the discussion in

6

Unalachtigo. Id.

7

Additionally, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs Tony Lopez, III, Desiree Salinas,

8

and Carlos Salinas (the “Individual Plaintiffs”) to either obtain a new attorney or

9

affirmatively indicate to the Court that they intend to proceed pro se no later than

10

March 30, 2018.

11

After Mission Creek Band of Mission Indians and the Individual Plaintiffs

12

comply with this Order, the Court will order the parties to meet and confer and set a

13

revised briefing schedule. Failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal

14

of this action for failure to prosecute without further notice.
III.

15
16
17
18

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the Court rules, as follows:
1. The Court preliminarily GRANTS Maddox’s Motion to Withdraw (ECF
No. 78);

19

2. Maddox shall serve this Order on its former clients, provide their last

20

known addresses to the Court, and file a proof of service of the same

21

before March 9, 2018;

22

3. Mission Creek Band of Mission Indians shall obtain new counsel, or

23

SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why it should not be required to do so, on,

24

or before, March 30, 2018;

25

4. The Individual Plaintiffs shall obtain new counsel or affirmatively submit

26

to the Court that they intend to proceed pro se, on or before March 30,

27

2018.

28

5. After March 30, 2018, the Court will evaluate Mission Creek Band of

4

1

Indians and the Individual Plaintiffs’ submissions, if any, and relieve

2

Maddox as counsel of record, at that time.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

March 5, 2018

6
7
8

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5