Lyon v. Bergstrom Law, Ltd.

Filing 52

ORDER discharging 48 Order to Show Cause and granting 51 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/3/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NICOLE LYON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:16-cv-00401-DAD-SKO

v.

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE AS TO ATTORNEY HEIDBRINK

BERGSTROM LAW, LTD.,

15

Defendant.

16

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW
(Doc. Nos. 48, 49, 51)

17
On September 8, 2017, the court issued an order requiring attorneys Katherine Heidbrink

18
19

and Jeremy Bergstrom to show cause why their conduct in this case should not be referred to their

20

respective state bars. (Doc. No. 48.) The order directed both attorneys to file written responses

21

with the court no later than September 22, 2017. (Id. at 2.) On September, 25, 2017, attorney

22

Heidbrink did so. 1 (Doc. No. 49.) Good cause appearing, the court therefore discharges its order

23

to show cause (Doc. No. 48) as to attorney Heidbrink.

24
1

25
26
27
28

Attorney Heidbrink explains that her tardiness in responding to the order to show cause was due
to her not having received “actual notice” of the order until September 25, 2017. (Doc. No. 49 at
¶ 9.) The court notes that actual notice is not required in order for service to be proper. Jones v.
Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 226 (2006) (“notice [is] constitutionally sufficient if it was reasonably
calculated to reach the intended recipient when sent.”) (internal citations omitted). In any event,
attorney Heidbrink did in fact receive actual notice of the order via electronic service to her
personal email account. (Doc No. 49 at ¶ 10.)
1

1

In conjunction with her response to the order to show cause, attorney Heidbrink also filed

2

a motion to withdraw as attorney for defendant pursuant to Local Rule 182(d). (Doc. No. 51-1 at

3

2.) Pursuant to that rule, attorney Heidbrink has provided the court with her client’s last known

4

address, as well as efforts made to notify the client of the motion to withdraw. (Doc. No. 51-5 at

5

¶ 12; Doc. No. 51-4 at 2.) Moreover, in accordance with California Rule of Professional Conduct

6

3-700(C)(5), the court finds that “[t]he client knowingly and freely assent[ed] to termination of

7

the employment.” (See Doc. No. 51-5 at ¶ 5) (explaining that attorney Heidbrink had made an

8

“express agreement with Jeremy Bergstrom” to substitute in new counsel upon her departure from

9

that firm). The court therefore grants attorney Heidbrink’s motion to withdraw as attorney.

10
11

Accordingly,
1.

12
13

attorney Heidbrink; and
2.

14
15
16

The September 8, 2017 order to show cause (Doc. No. 48) is discharged as to

Attorney Heidbrink’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record for defendant
Bergstrom Law, LTD (Doc. No. 51) is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 3, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2