Saechao v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
19
ORDER GRANTING 17 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff; ORDER Directing Clerk to Update Docket and Serve Pro Se Plaintiff, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/29/2017. (Hall, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SARN SING SAECHAO,
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
NANCY A. BERRYHILL1,
Acting commissioner of Social Security,
15
Defendant.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1716 - JLT
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW
AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINITFF
(Doc. 17)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO UPDATE
DOCKET AND SERVE PRO SE PLAINTIFF
17
On September 5, 2017, Monica Perales filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record for
18
Plaintiff Sarn Sing Saechao. The motion was not opposed by Plaintiff or the defendant, Nancy A.
19
Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security. For the following reasons, the motion to withdraw
20
is GRANTED.
21
I.
22
Legal Standard
Withdrawal of counsel is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of
23
California, and the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. See
24
LR 182. The withdrawal of representation is permitted under the Rules of Professional Conduct if a
25
client “renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry our employment effectively.” Cal.
26
R.P.C. 3-700(C)(1)(d). Local Rule 182(d) provides:
27
28
1
Nancy A. Berryhill is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court substitutes Nancy A. Berryhill for her predecessor, Carolyn W. Colvin, as the defendant.
1
3
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.
4
Id. Likewise, California’s Rules require the notice of motion and declaration to be served on the client
5
and other parties who have appeared in the case. CRC 3.1362(d).
1
2
6
The decision to grant withdrawal is within the discretion of the Court, and leave “may be
7
granted subject to such appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit.” LR 182; see also Canandaigua
8
Wine Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, 2009 WL 89141, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009) (“The decision to grant or
9
deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial court.”). Factors the
10
Court may consider include: (1) the reasons for withdrawal, (2) prejudice that may be caused to the
11
other litigants, (3) harm caused to the administration of justice; and (4) delay to the resolution of the
12
case caused by withdrawal. Canandaigua Wine Co., 2009 WL 89141, at *1.
13
II.
14
Discussion and Analysis
Ms. Perales asserts she is unable to continue to represent Plaintiff because “[t]e attorney-client
15
relationship has completely failed.” (Doc. 17 at 3) Ms. Perales reports that she “has been unable to
16
communicate or otherwise obtain substantive direction from plaintiff.” (Id.) According to Ms. Perales,
17
she attempted to contact Plaintiff by mail three times—including by certified mail, which confirmed
18
receipt— and called twice, without receiving a response. (Id.) Because Ms. Perales has been unable to
19
communicate with Plaintiff, Ms. Perales now seeks permission to withdraw her representation.
20
Notably, the lack of cooperation by a client supports the request for withdrawal. See Canandaigua
21
Wine Co., 2009 WL 89141, at *1 (citing Schueneman v. 1st Credit of America, LLC, 2007 WL
22
1969708, at *7–8 (N.D.Cal. July 6, 2007); Statue of Liberty–Ellis Island Foundation, Inc. v. Int’l
23
United Industries, Inc., 110 F.R.D. 395, 397 (S.D.N.Y.1986)). Thus, Plaintiff’s failure to communicate
24
with counsel and cooperate with his attorney in the prosecution of this action supports the request by
25
Ms. Perales to withdraw as counsel of record.
26
The declaration and proofs of service indicate Ms. Perales served all parties, including Plaintiff,
27
with the documents required by the California Rules. (See Doc. 17 at 6) Neither Plaintiff nor
28
Defendant has filed an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion to withdrawal, and it
2
1
does not appear Defendant would suffer prejudice as a result of the withdrawal. Further, it appears any
2
delay in this action caused by the withdrawal would be minimal, and there is little risk of harm to the
3
administration of justice.
4
III.
5
Conclusion and Order
Monica Perales followed the procedural and substantive requirements set forth in the
6
California Rules of Professional Conduct and the Local Rules in filing the motion to withdraw as
7
counsel, and set forth sufficient reasons for the withdrawal. Therefore, the Court is acting within its
8
discretion to grant the motion to withdraw. See LR 182. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
9
1.
The motion to withdraw (Doc. 17) is GRANTED;
10
2.
The Clerk’s Office SHALL TERMINATE Monica Perales as “Attorney to be
11
Noticed” for Plaintiff Sarn Sing Saechao in the Court docket, and update the docket to
12
reflect Plaintiff’s last known contact information as follows:
Sarn Sing Saechao
1301 S. Marion St.
Tulare, CA 93274
13
14
15
3.
No later than October 13, 2017, plaintiff SHALL notify the Court whether he intends
16
to represent himself in this matter, or whether he has secured substitute counsel, and
17
whether he intends to prosecute this action.
18
Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with the Local Rules, Federal Rules, or a Court Order,
19
may result in dismissal of this action pursuant to Local Rule 110.
20
21
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 29, 2017
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?