United States of America v. APN: 205-75-11504, 8617 S. Sun Bar Ranch Pl, Vail, AZ

Filing 36

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 4/8/09 ORDERING attorneys Janet Sherman and Eric Honig's 32 MOTION to WITHDRAW as ATTORNEY is GRANTED. (Carlos, K)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8617 SOUTH SUN BAR RANCH PLACE, VAIL, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA, APN: 205-75-11504, INCLUDING ALL APPURTENANCES AND IMPROVEMENTS THERETO, Defendants. JOHN W. HOLLIS and JUDITH L. HOLLIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE THREE EIGHT TRUST, Claimants. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No. 2:06-CV-00436 JAM-DAD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

The matter before the Court is attorneys Janet Sherman and Eric Honig's (collectively, "Attorneys'") Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record in this matter for John W. Hollis and Judith L. Hollis (collectively, "Claimants") pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(d) and State Bar Rule 3-700(C)(1)(f). In their motion, Attorneys

request leave of court to withdraw as counsel because Claimants 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

have failed to pay legal fees. 1 According to Local Rule 83-182(d), "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." Further, an attorney

seeking to withdraw under Local Rule 83-182(d) "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." E.D. Cal. L.R. 83-182(d). A motion to withdraw as

attorney of record is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California. Id.

The decision to grant or deny an attorney's motion to withdraw as counsel is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998). After reviewing the record and the reasons for withdrawal noted by Attorneys, the Court concludes that there is good cause to grant Attorneys' Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. no longer able to pay their legal fees. The Claimants are

The Court further

concludes that the withdrawal will not unduly prejudice Claimants or unduly delay resolution of the case because this matter is currently stayed. Furthermore, Claimants have consented to Accordingly, Attorneys' Motion to Withdraw

Attorneys' withdrawal. as Counsel is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 8, 2009

_____________________________ JOHN A. MENDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h). 2

1