Hauge et al

Filing 41

ORDER on Plaintiffs' Counsel 37 Motion to Withdraw, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/18/2014. Attorney Jason Green-Lowe and Philip R Weltin Terminated. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

AL HAUGE, MARK HAUGE,

9

12

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL
MOTION TO WITHDRAW

Plaintiff,

10
11

Case No. 1: 12-cv-02009-BAM

v.
ADRIATIC INSURANCE COMPANY,
et al.,
Defendants.

13

/

14
15

I.

16

INTRODUCTION

Counsel for plaintiffs Al Hauge and Mark Hauge filed a Motion to Withdraw as counsel of

17

record on March 5, 2014. (Doc. 37.)1 The motion was served on plaintiffs at the last known address

18

for plaintiffs. No opposition to the Motion was filed. The Motion was heard on April 18, 2014, at

19

9:00 AM, before the United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Counsel Jason Green-

20

Lowe personally appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs. No other appearances were made. Having

21

considered the moving papers, argument presented at the hearing, as well as the Court’s file, the

22

motion is GRANTED.

23
24
25
1

26
27
28

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge and this case
was assigned to the undersigned on April 4, 2013. (Doc. 24.)
1

II.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 10, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Defendants. (Doc. 1.)

2
3

Plaintiffs allege they entered into an agreement whereby Defendants would procure insurance for

4

Plaintiffs’ “car hauling” business. Id. at ¶¶ 9-13. Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to procure

5

adequate insurance pursuant to the terms of the agreement, and subsequently suffered an economic

6

loss when a hail storm damaged one of Plaintiffs’ delivery trucks and six automobiles being

7

transported. Id. at ¶ 14. Defendant Adriatic Insurance Co has settled and been released. The

8

remaining defendant has been defaulted.
III.

9

DISCUSSION

10

A.

Legal Standard

11

An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court. Darby v. City of Torrance, 810

12

F.Supp. 275, 276 (C.D.Cal.1992). Permission to withdraw is discretionary. See United States v.

13

Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009).

14

Local Rule 182(d) provides:

15

Subject to the provisions of subsection (c), an attorney who has appeared may not
withdraw leaving the client in propria persona without leave of Court upon noticed motion
and notice to the client and all other persons who have appeared. The attorney shall
provide an affidavit stating the current or last known address or addresses of the client and
the efforts made to notify the client of the motion to withdraw. Withdrawal as attorney is
governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, and the
attorney shall conform to the requirements of those Rules. The authority and duty of the
attorney of record shall continue until relieved by order of the Court issued hereunder.
Leave to withdraw may be granted subject to such appropriate conditions as the Court
deems fit.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

L.R. 182(d).
California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-700(C) addresses permissive withdrawal

24

from a case for a variety of reasons, including the client's insistence that the lawyer present

25

unmeritorious arguments or pursue an illegal course of conduct, the client's breach of a fee agreement,

26

and the client's conduct makes it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to perform effectively on the

27
28

2

1

client's behalf. Where withdrawal from a case is not mandatory under the Rules of Professional

2

Conduct, an attorney must ordinarily continue representation despite a case becoming unpleasant or

3

unprofitable. Here, counsel moves for permissive withdrawal under Rule of Professional Conduct 3-

4

700(C)(1)(d) which provides for withdrawal if the client’s “conduct renders it unreasonably difficult

5

for the [attorney] to carry out the employment effectively.” Rule 3-700(C)(1)(d).

6

In ruling on a motion to withdraw, courts may consider the following factors: (1) the reasons

7

why the withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm

8

withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will

9

delay the resolution of the case. Leatt Corp. v. Innovative Safety Tech., LLC, 2010 WL 444708, *1

10

(S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2010); Beard v. Shuttermart of California, Inc., 2008 WL 410694, *2 (S.D. Cal.

11

Feb. 13, 2008)).

12

B.

13

Counsel’s motion to withdraw contains a declaration stating that the client has made it

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Analysis

unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively and that there has been
a breach of the agreement between the parties. Counsel has repeatedly attempted to get documents
necessary for the representation from the client to no avail. In the motion, Counsel provided complete
contact information for Plaintiff and indicated that the instant motion has been served upon Plaintiffs
and Defendants. (Doc. 37). Counsel also indicates that he orally informed plaintiff of counsels’ intent
to withdraw. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion nor has an opposition by the Defendant been
filed. Based upon the motion and the representations made at oral argument, the Court finds that the
attorney-client relationship has fundamentally broken down and good cause exists for withdrawal.
Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by the withdrawal. One of the defendants has settled the case
and the monies have been dispersed to plaintiffs. That party, Adriatic Insurance Co., has been released
and dismissed with prejudice. The only other defendant, Singh Amrit, has an entry of default against
him. (Doc. 15.) Plaintiffs can pursue alternative counsel and prove up their damages against this

26
27
28

3

1
2

defendant. Plaintiffs Al Hauge and Mark Hauge are individuals operating under a trade name of “Blue
Diamond Transport.” Therefore, plaintiffs could be substituted in in pro per.

3
4
5
6

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:
1. The motion to withdraw as counsel of record by Weltin, Streb & Weltin, LLP, Philip

7
8
9
10

CONCLUSION

Weltin, and Jason Green-Law is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiffs Al Hauge and Mark Hauge are substituted in in pro per.
3. The last known address of plaintiffs is: P.O. Box 204; Forest Lake, MN 55025
4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on plaintiffs Al Hauge

11

and Mark Hauge at this address.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
Dated:
15

/s/ Barbara

April 18, 2014

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

28

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16

27

A. McAuliffe

4