Theresa Brooke v. SB Hospitality Palm Springs LLC

Filing 24

ORDER GRANTING CORRECTED MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL #21 AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO WITHDRAW #19 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court orders Defendant to obtain new counsel by February 6, 2017. If Defendant fails to obtain new counsel by that date, the Court will strike its answer and enter a default. (lc). Modified on 1/17/2017 .(lc).

1

O

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

United States District Court
Central District of California

9
10
11
12

THERESA BROOKE, an individual,
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14
15
16
17
18

Case No. 5:16-CV-00953-ODW(SS)
ORDER GRANTING CORRECTED

SB HOSPITALITY PALM SPRINGS

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS

LLC, a California Limited Liability

COUNSEL [21] AND DENYING AS

Company, doing business as COMFORT

MOOT MOTION TO WITHDRAW

INN PALM SPRINGS DOWNTOWN,

[19]

Defendant.

19
20

I.

21

INTRODUCTION

22

Before the Court is Aaron Garcia’s corrected motion to withdraw as counsel for

23

Defendant SB Hospitality Palm Springs, LLC. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff Theresa

24

Brooke has not opposed the motion. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS

25

the motion to withdraw and orders Defendant to obtain new counsel by February 6,

26

2017.1

27
28

1

After carefully considering the papers filed in support of the motion, the Court deems the matter
appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15.

II.

1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2

Plaintiff is “a disabled woman bound to a wheelchair.” (Compl. ¶ 3, ECF No.

3

1.) Defendant is the owner and operator of Comfort Inn Palm Springs Downtown

4

(“Comfort Inn”), a hotel. (Id. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff alleges that she was considering a trip to

5

the Palm Springs area and contacted Comfort Inn to ascertain whether its swimming

6

pool or Jacuzzi had a “pool lift or other means of access” that would allow disabled

7

persons such as herself to use those amenities. (Id. ¶ 24.) Defendant’s representative

8

allegedly told Plaintiff that neither the pool nor the Jacuzzi possessed such features.

9

(Id.) Plaintiff alleges that these barriers deterred her from seeking accommodations at

10

Comfort Inn. (Id. ¶ 31.) On May 10, 2016, Plaintiff filed the pending case against

11

Defendant alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California

12

Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act. (Id. ¶ 1.)

13

Defendant’s attorney, Aaron Garcia, moved to withdraw as counsel of record on

14

January 3, 2017. (ECF No. 19.) However, that motion contained several technical

15

errors, including an improper caption. (ECF No. 20.) He then filed this corrected

16

motion to withdraw on January 4, 2017. (ECF No. 21.) Garcia served the motion on

17

both his client and Plaintiff, but neither filed a timely opposition. (ECF No. 21-4.)
III.

18

LEGAL STANDARD

19

According to the Local Rules governing this Court, “[a]n attorney may not

20

withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.3.2; see also

21

Darby v. City of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992). “A motion for

22

leave to withdraw must be made upon written notice given reasonably in advance to

23

the client and to all other parties who have appeared in the action,” and must be for

24

good cause. C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.3.2. The Court has discretion to grant or deny a

25

motion to withdraw as counsel. See, e.g., Huntington Learning Ctrs., Inc. v. Educ.

26

Gateway, Inc., No. CV 09-3200 PSG (VBKx), 2009 WL 2337863, at *1 (C.D. Cal.

27

June 28, 2009).

28

2

IV.

1

DISCUSSION

2

The Court finds that there is good cause for withdrawal. Mr. Garcia indicates in

3

one of his two declarations that “[d]espite emails, letters[,] and in office meetings,” his

4

client “absolutely fails and refuses to take [his] advice” and that continued

5

representation of Defendant would cause him to “violate the rules of professional

6

conduct.” (Garcia Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 21-2.) Mr. Garcia also indicates that he is

7

willing to provide a more “detailed” account of the reasons for his requested

8

withdrawal under seal. (Id. ¶ 4.)

9

Mr. Garcia’s declaration makes clear that the attorney-client relationship is

10

irreparably broken. (Id. ¶ 2.) Mr. Garcia cites numerous occasions on which his

11

client ignored his advice.

12

withdrawal under California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d). See Cal.

13

R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d) (permissive withdrawal allowed when the client’s

14

conduct “renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment

15

effectively”); see also Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. C 09-01643 SBA, 2010

16

WL 3702459, at *2–4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010) (finding withdrawal warranted where

17

the client has made it unreasonably difficult to carry out the representation

18

effectively).

(Id.)

This type of conduct is sufficient to warrant

19

Mr. Garcia has complied with the Local Rules’ notice requirements. C.D. Cal.

20

L.R. 83-2.3.2. He served each party with notice of his intent to withdraw and warned

21

Defendant that a business entity may not appear pro se in federal court. (ECF Nos.

22

21-4, 23); see also C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.2.2 (“Only individuals may represent

23

themselves pro se. No organization or entity of any . . . kind . . . may appear in any

24

action or proceeding unless represented by an attorney permitted to practice before

25

this Court under L.R. 83-2.1.”); Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s

26

Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better

27

part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only

28

through licensed counsel.”).

3

1

Finally, the Court finds that allowing Mr. Garcia’s withdrawal at this time

2

would not unduly delay resolution of this action or prejudice either party.

3

discovery-cutoff in this case is August 7, 2017, the last day for hearing motions is

4

September 11, 2017, and trial is scheduled for November 7, 2017. (See ECF No. 16.)

5

The earliest of those dates is still eight months away.
V.

6

The

CONCLUSION

7

For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS the motion to withdraw.

8

(ECF No. 21.) The Court orders Defendant to obtain new counsel by February 6,

9

2017. If Defendant fails to obtain new counsel by that date, the Court will strike its

10

answer and enter a default. The original motion to withdraw is DENIED as MOOT.

11

(ECF No. 19.)

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

January 17, 2017

15
16
17

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4