Carrington, et al. v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.

Filing 10

ORDER GRANTING 6 the Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record; ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS to File Written Notice of Their Intent to Proceed, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/6/2018. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHERYL CARRINGTON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
v.

13
14

FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:18-cv-00203- LJO- JLT
ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION TO BE
RELIEVED AS COUNSEL OF RECORD
(Doc. 6)
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE
WRITTEN NOTICE OF THEIR INTENT TO
PROCEED

16
On March 9, 2018, attorney Vartkes Artinian filed a motion to withdraw counsel of record for

17
18

Plaintiffs Cheryl Carrington and James Carrington. (Doc. 6) Mr. Artinian reports JT Legal Group,

19

APC, is unable to continue their representation of Plaintiffs, who have not opposed this motion.

20

Likewise, Defendants have not opposed the request of counsel to withdraw. For the following

21

reasons, Mr. Artinian’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

22

I.

23

Background
Plaintiffs contend the defendants are liable for unlawful actions taken related to a foreclosure,

24

and initiated this action by filing a complaint in Kern County Superior Court Case No. BCV-18-100029

25

on January 5, 2018. (Doc. 1-1 at 2) Defendant Wells Fargo filed a Notice of Removal pursuant to 28

26

U.S.C. §§ 1441(b), 1332 on February 8, 2018, thereby initiating the matter in this Court. (Doc. 1)

27
28

On February 14, 2018, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which was taken under submission
by the Court. (Docs. 4, 8) Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion on March 9, 2018. (Doc. 9) The
1

1

same date, Mr. Artinian filed the motion to withdraw as counsel. (Doc. 6) The Court held at hearing

2

on the motion to withdraw on April 6, 2018.

3

II.

4

Discussion and Analysis
Withdrawal of counsel is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of

5

California, and the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. See

6

LR 182. The withdrawal of representation is permitted under the Rules of Professional Conduct if a

7

client “renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry our employment effectively.” Cal.

8

R.P.C. 3-700(C)(1)(d). Local Rule 182(d) provides:

11

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.

12

Id. Likewise, California’s Rules require the notice of motion and declaration to be served on the client

13

and other parties who have appeared in the case. CRC 3.1362(d).

9
10

14

The decision to grant withdrawal is within the discretion of the Court, and leave “may be

15

granted subject to such appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit.” LR 182; see also Canandaigua

16

Wine Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, 2009 WL 989141, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009) (“The decision to grant

17

or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial court.”). Factors the

18

Court may consider include: (1) the reasons for withdrawal, (2) prejudice that may be caused to the

19

other litigants, (3) harm caused to the administration of justice; and (4) delay to the resolution of the

20

case caused by withdrawal. Id., 2009 WL 989141, at *1-2.

21

Mr. Artinian asserts JT Legal Group, APC, is unable to continue to representation because “the

22

attorney-client relationship has suffered a breakdown in communication.” (Doc. 6 at 1) According to

23

Mr. Artinian, Plaintiffs have “not been able to maintain [their] duties under the attorney client

24

agreement.” (Doc. 6-1 at 2, Artinian Decl. ¶ 2) He asserts, “Due to breaches of the attorney client

25

retainer agreement, the attorney cannot effectively represent the client moving forward, which

26

necessitates the need for the instant withdrawal.” (Id.)

27
28

The declaration, and the proofs of service of the motion clearly indicate all parties, including
Plaintiffs, were served with the documents required by the California Rules. (See Doc. 6-3 at 2)
2

1

Plaintiffs did not oppose the motion to withdraw, and thereby have indicated their consent to the

2

withdrawal. In addition, it does not appear that Defendant would suffer any prejudice. Finally, any

3

delay to the resolution of this case caused by the withdrawal will be minimal, particularly as the action

4

has not yet been scheduled. Accordingly, the factors set forth by the Court in Canandaigua Wine Co.,

5

Inc. v. Moldauer weigh in favor of granting the motion to withdraw.

6

III. Conclusion and Order

7

Vartkes Artinian followed the procedural and substantive requirements set forth in the

8

California Rules of Professional Conduct and the Local Rules in filing the motion to withdraw as

9

Plaintiff’s attorney, and set forth sufficient reasons for the withdrawal. Therefore, the Court is acting

10

within its discretion to grant the motion to withdraw. See LR 182. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

11

1.

The motion to withdraw (Doc. 6) is GRANTED;

12

2.

The Clerk’s Office SHALL TERMINATE Vartkes Artinian and all attorneys from JT

13

Legal Group, APC as “Lead Attorney to be Noticed” for Plaintiffs in the Court docket,

14

and update the docket to reflect Plaintiffs’ last known contact information as follows:
James Carrington and Cheryl Carrington
200 Sowerby Village Lane
Bakersfield, California 93307

15
16
17

3.

Plaintiffs SHALL notify the Court in writing of their intent to proceed with this action
no later than April 20, 2018.

18
19

Plaintiffs are advised that failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that

20

the action be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110.

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 6, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
3