Rios v. City of Bakersfield et al
Filing
19
ORDER GRANTING 15 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record for Plaintiff, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/18/2016. (Hall, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JUVENTINO RIOS,
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al.,
15
Defendant.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:16-cv-00372 - JLT
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW
AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR PLAINTIFF
(Doc. 18)
17
On July 8, 2016, attorney J. Miguel Flores, on behalf of himself and the entire firm of
18
Rodriguez & Associates, filed a motion to withdraw as attorney of record for Juventino Rios. (Doc.
19
15.) Mr. Flores asserts he is unable to continue his representation of Mr. Rios due to a breakdown in
20
communications. Neither Mr. Rios nor the defendants submitted opposition to this motion. For the
21
following reasons, Mr. Flores’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
22
I.
Procedural History
23
Plaintiff began this suit by filing his complaint on March 16, 2016, claiming the City of
24
Bakersfield is liable for violation of the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive
25
force and unlawful searches, seizures, and arrests. (See generally Doc. 1.) Additionally, the plaintiff
26
asserts Jaime Orozco, and C. Haskins are liable for violations of the Bane Civil Rights Act, assault,
27
battery, false arrest, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the California dog bite
28
statutes. (See generally Id.) The City filed its answer to the complaint on April 7, 2016. (Doc. 7.) The
1
1
current motion before the court was filed on June 3, 2016 by Mr. Flores. (Doc. 15.) Defendants then
2
filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion to withdraw on June 8, 2016. (Doc. 16.) However,
3
Plaintiff failed to file any response to the motion.
4
II.
Legal Standard
The Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California and the Local Rules of the
5
6
United States District Court, Eastern District of California govern the withdrawal of counsel. See LR
7
182(d). Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, withdrawal of representation is allowed if a client’s
8
conduct “renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively.”
9
Cal. R.P.C. 3-700(C)(1)(d). For withdrawal under Local Rule 182(d), an attorney who has appeared in
10
the action “may not withdraw leaving the client in propria persona” without the Court’s permission.
11
Further, the attorney must also ensure the client and all other parties that have appeared are receive
12
notice of the motion to withdraw through proper service. CRC 3.1362(d); see also LR 182(d). The
13
attorney then must “provide an affidavit stating the current or last known address or addresses of the
14
client and the efforts made to notify the client of the motion” to the Court. LR 182(d). Similarly,
15
California’s rules require the attorney also give “due notice to the client, allowing time for
16
employment of other counsel.” Cal. R.P.C. 3-700(A)(2).
17
The Court’s decision to grant a motion to withdraw is discretionary. See LR 182(d). To
18
determine whether withdrawal is appropriate, the Court may consider: (1) the reasons for withdrawal,
19
(2) possible prejudice to other litigants, (3) resulting harm to the administration of justice, and (4) any
20
possible delay caused by the withdrawal. Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, 2009 U.S. Dist.
21
LEXIS 4238, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2009).
22
III.
23
Discussion and Analysis
Mr. Flores states he is unable to continue representation because “communication between
24
counsel and Mr. Rios has broken down to the point where counsel is not able to provide Mr. Rios with
25
the standard of legal service R&A is comfortable with.” (Doc. 15 at 3.) According to Counsel,
26
Plaintiff relocated to Mexico, and since his relocation, Counsel only had the opportunity to
27
communicate with Plaintiff once on May 10, 2016. (Id.) On May 26, 2016, Counsel sent a certified
28
letter to the address Plaintiff provided, asking him to fill out a substitution of attorney form, but there
2
1
was no response. (Id. at 6.) Accordingly, it appears Mr. Rios is unable to communicate with his client.
The declaration and the proof of service of the motion to withdraw indicate that Plaintiff and
2
3
all other parties were served with the proper documents, as required under the California Rules.
4
Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion to withdraw (Doc. 16 at 1), and there is
5
no evidence the withdrawal of Counsel will cause prejudice to Defendants. In addition, the case has
6
not yet been scheduled by the Court and no trial has been set, so the withdrawal is unlikely to cause
7
delay to the proceedings. Finally, the Court does not find there would be any risk of harm to the
8
administration of justice.
9
IV. Conclusion and Order
10
J. Miguel Flores followed the procedural and substantive requirements set forth in the
11
California Rules of Professional Conduct and the Local Rules when submitting the motion to
12
withdraw as Plaintiff’s attorney, and stated adequate reasons for the withdrawal. Thus, the Court is
13
exercising its discretion to grant the motion to withdraw. See LR 182.
14
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
15
1.
The motion to withdraw (Doc. 13) is GRANTED;
16
2.
The Clerk’s Office SHALL TERMINATE J. Miguel Flores and the entire firm of
17
Rodriguez & Associates as “Lead Attorney to be Noticed” for Plaintiff in the Court
18
docket, and update the docket to reflect Plaintiff’s pro se status and last known contact
19
information as follows:
Juventino Rios
5700 Sunland Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93304
20
21
3.
22
No later than July 29, 2016, Plaintiff SHALL file a notification indicating whether he
23
intends to represent himself going forward or whether he will retain a new attorney. If
24
Plaintiff intends to hire an attorney, he SHALL state when this will occur.
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
3
1
2
Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with this or any order of the Court may result
in the action being dismissed.
3
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 18, 2016
/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?