Sarver v. The City of Bakersfield
Filing
23
ORDER GRANTING 15 Counsels' Motion to Withdraw as Attorneys of Record, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/9/2015. Show Cause Response due within 21 days. (Hall, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BREN SARVER,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD,
15
Defendant.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:14-cv-00141- JLT
ORDER GRANTING COUNSELS’ MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD
(Doc. 15)
On July 11, 2014, attorneys Mark Adams and John Briscoe from the Law Office of Mayall
17
18
Hurley, P.C., filed a motion to withdraw as attorneys of record for Plaintiff Bren Sarver. (Doc. 15.)
19
For the following reasons, the motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
20
I.
21
Procedural History
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his complaint on February 3, 2014, asserting the City of
22
Bakersfield (“the City”) is liable for disability discrimination; failure to engage in the interactive
23
process; retaliation for, and interference with, his taking protected medical leave; retaliation for
24
Plaintiff’s opposition to unlawful conduct; and failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation. (See
25
generally Doc. 1.) The City filed its answer to the complaint on February 28, 2014. (Doc. 6.) The
26
Court entered its Scheduling Order on May 19, 2014, setting the deadline for non-expert discovery as
27
March 3, 2015, and the completion of expert discovery as April 22, 2015. (Doc. 9 at 1.) Further, the
28
trial date was set for November 17, 2015. (Id.)
1
On December 3, 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel filed the motion now pending before the Court,
1
2
seeking to withdraw as counsel. (Doc. 15.) To date, neither Plaintiff nor the City has opposed the
3
motion to withdraw. In addition, the City has stipulated to the extension of discovery deadlines and the
4
continuance of the trial date. (Doc. 16-3 at 2-3.)
5
II.
6
Discussion and Analysis
Withdrawal of counsel is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of
7
California, and the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. See
8
LR 182. The withdrawal of representation is permitted under the Rules of Professional Conduct if a
9
client “renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry our employment effectively.” Cal.
10
R.P.C. 3-700(C)(1)(d). Local Rule 182(d) provides:
13
Unless otherwise provided herein, 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 parties 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.
14
Id. Likewise, California’s Rules require the notice of motion and declaration to be served on the client
15
and other parties who have appeared in the case. CRC 3.1362(d).
11
12
16
The decision to grant withdrawal is within the discretion of the Court, and leave “may be
17
granted subject to such appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit.” LR 182; see also Canandaigua
18
Wine Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, 2009 WL 989141, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009) (“The decision to grant
19
or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial court.”). Factors the
20
Court may consider include: (1) the reasons for withdrawal, (2) prejudice that may be caused to the
21
other litigants, (3) harm caused to the administration of justice; and (4) delay to the resolution of the
22
case caused by withdrawal. Id., 2009 WL 989141, at *1-2.
23
Here, Mark Adams and John Briscoe assert they are unable to continue to representation
24
because there is “an irreparable conflict of interest between . . . counsel and Plaintiff that renders
25
effective representation impossible.” (Doc. 17 at 2.) According to Mr. Briscoe, he sent a letter to
26
Plaintiff on November 14, 2014, “suggesting that he obtain a new attorney immediately.” (Doc. 16 at
27
2, Briscoe Decl. ¶ 2.) In addition, Mr. Briscoe sent a “Consent to Substitution form” to Plaintiff on
28
November 17, 2014, requesting that “Plaintiff and his new attorney execute and return the form.” (Id.,
2
1
¶ 3.) Plaintiff did not respond to either letter, and his counsel “received no indication that Plaintiff has
2
obtained new counsel or attempted to do so.” (Id., ¶ 4.) The declaration and proof of service indicate
3
clearly that all parties, including Plaintiff, were served with the documents required by the California
4
Rules. Plaintiff did not file any opposition the motion, thereby indicating his consent to the
5
withdrawal. Further, Plaintiff failed to appear at the hearing on the motion to withdraw. As a result,
6
there is no indication Plaintiff seeks to continue to prosecute this action.
7
III. Conclusion and Order
Mark Adams and John Briscoe followed the procedural and substantive requirements set forth
8
9
in the California Rules of Professional Conduct and the Local Rules in filing the motion to withdraw
10
as Plaintiff’s attorneys, and set forth sufficient reasons for the withdrawal. Therefore, the Court is
11
acting within its discretion to grant the motion to withdraw. See LR 182.
12
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
13
1.
The motion to withdraw is GRANTED and Mark Adams, John Briscoe and the Law
Office of Mayall Hurley, P.C. are relieved from representation in this matter;
14
2.
15
The Clerk’s Office SHALL TERMINATE Mark Adams and John Briscoe as “Lead
16
Attorneys to be Noticed” for Plaintiff in the Court docket, and update the docket to
17
reflect Plaintiff now appearing pro se and his last known contact information as
18
follows:
Bren Sarver
3313 Herndon Street
Bakersfield, CA 93312
19
20
3.
21
Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause in writing within 21 days of the date of service
22
of this order, why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute this
23
action. Failure to comply with this order will result in the matter being dismissed
24
pursuant to Local Rule 110;
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
3
1
4.
The request to modify the deadlines set forth in the scheduling order is deferred until
the Court can determine whether Plaintiff intends to prosecute this action.
2
3
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 9, 2015
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?