Ortiz et al v. Alvarez et al

Filing 108

ORDER GRANTING Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record 100 , signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 5/31/17. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

S. ORTIZ, et al.,

12

Case No. 1:15-cv-00535-DAD-EPG

Plaintiff(s),

13

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY OF
RECORD

vs.

14
GERARDO ALVAREZ, et al.,
15

(ECF No. 100)
Defendant(s).

16
17

On May 19, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel Alexia Kirkland of Kirkland Law of California filed

18

a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs Alfonso Padron and Elida Padron.

19

(ECF No. 100.) The matter was heard in a motion hearing on May 26, 2017, before the

20

undersigned judge. Defendants did not file any opposition to the Motion or appear at the May 26

21

hearing. After considering the arguments by the parties and for the reasons set forth on the record

22

at the May 26 hearing and below, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of

23

Record.

24

I.

25

DISCUSSION
Rule 182(d) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of

26

California provides that an attorney who has appeared on behalf of a client may not withdraw,

27

leaving the client in propria persona, without leave of court. “Withdrawal of an attorney is

28
1

1

governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California.” Local Rule 182(d).

2

Under those rules, permissive withdrawal of an attorney is allowed when, among other things, a

3

client “knowingly and freely assents to termination of the employment.” Cal. Rule of Prof’l

4

Conduct 3-700(C)(5). Courts maintain the discretion to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as

5

counsel, however. LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998). In considering such

6

a motion, courts may consider: “(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice

7

withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the

8

administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the

9

case.” Leatt Corp. v. Innovative Safety Tech., LLC, No. 09-CV-1301-IEG (POR), 2010 WL

10

444708, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2010). “Leave to withdraw may be granted subject to such

11

appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit.” Local Rule 182(d).

12
13

Attorney Kirkland has requested permission to withdraw from this case pursuant to Rule
3-700(C)(5) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, which provides:

14

(C) Permissive Withdrawal.

15

If rule 3-700(B) is not applicable, a member may not request permission to
withdraw in matters pending before a tribunal, and may not withdraw in other
matters, unless such request or such withdrawal is because:

16
17

(5) The client knowingly and freely assents to termination of the
employment.

18
19

At the May 26, 2017 motion hearing, Alfonso and Elida Pardon made statements to the Court on

20

the record concerning whether they knowingly and freely assented to the termination of Attorney

21

Kirkland. The Court has considered these statements as well as representations from Attorney

22

Kirkland in reaching its conclusion. The Court finds that Plaintiff Alfonso Padron has knowingly

23

and freely assented to the termination of employment for Attorney Kirkland. The Court also finds

24

that Plaintiff Elida Padron has knowingly and freely assented to the termination of employment

25

for Attorney Kirkland. Accordingly, leave of court is granted pursuant to Local Rule 182(d) for

26

Attorney Kirkland to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs Alfonso Padron and Elida Padron.

27

\\\

28

\\\
2

1

II.

2
3

ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record (ECF No.

100) is GRANTED. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. Alexia Kirkland of Kirkland Law of California is relieved as counsel of record for

5

Plaintiff Alfonso Padron. Plaintiff shall be substituted in to proceed in the case pro se

6

and all future communications shall be directed to Plaintiff directly at: Alfonso

7

Padron, 16484 East Rose Avenue, Reedley, California 93656. The docket shall also be

8

updated to reflect Plaintiff’s phone number as [phone] and email address as

9

[e-mail];

10

2. Alexia Kirkland of Kirkland Law of California is relieved as counsel of record for

11

Plaintiff Elida Padron. Plaintiff shall be substituted in to proceed in the case pro se and

12

all future communications shall be directed to Plaintiff directly at: Elida Padron,

13

16484 East Rose Avenue, Reedley, California 93656. The docket shall also be updated

14

to reflect Plaintiff’s phone number as [phone] and email address as

15

[e-mail];

16

3. Within 30 days after entry of this Order, Kirkland Law of California shall provide

17

Plaintiffs with a copy of his/her complete case file, if it has not already done so.

18

4. The Clerk is directed to mail Plaintiff Alfonso Padron and Plaintiff Elida Padron a

19

copy of this order and the May 26 and 30, 2017 orders entered following the May 26

20

motion hearing. (ECF Nos. 104-105).

21

The Court strongly recommends that the pro se Plaintiffs retain new counsel to represent

22

them in this litigation. In the event they are unable to do so, the pro se Plaintiffs are responsible

23

for complying with all court rules and applicable laws. Failure to do so, and failure to comply

24

with any order of the court, may result in sanctions or dismissal of this action.

25

\\\

26

\\\

27

\\\

28
3

1
2

The pro se Plaintiffs are also advised to keep the Court apprised of their current mailing
address and telephone number. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this action.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 31, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4