Hamilton v. Dignity Health

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/21/2014 ORDERING that counsel's 14 motion to withdraw as counsel of record for plaintiff is GRANTED. Plaintiff is likewise GRANTED sixty (60) days from the date of this order to file her opposition to defendant's pending 17 motion for summary judgment. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:12-CV-02817-KJM-DAD

GINGER HAMILTON,

ORDER

v.
ST. JOSEPH’S MEDICAL CENTER, and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,
Defendants.

18
19

Michael C. Cohen (“counsel”) moves to withdraw as counsel of record for

20

plaintiff Ginger Hamilton (“plaintiff”). The motion is unopposed, and the court decides the

21

matter without argument. For the reasons below, the court GRANTS counsel’s motion to

22

withdraw and concurrently GRANTS plaintiff’s related motion for a sixty-day extension to

23

oppose defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 19.

24

Withdrawal of counsel is governed by Local Rule 182(d). Under the Rule, an

25

attorney who seeks to withdraw must (1) give notice to the client and all parties who have

26

appeared; (2) comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California; and

27

(3) obtain leave of court. L.R. 182(d). Professional Conduct Rule 3-700(C) in turn permits

28

withdrawal where “[t]he client . . . renders it unreasonably difficult for [counsel] to carry out
1

1

the employment effectively . . . .” However, counsel “shall not withdraw from employment

2

until [he or she] has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the

3

rights of the client, including[, inter alia,] giving due notice to the client[ and] allowing time

4

for employment of other counsel . . . .” CAL. RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 3-700(A)(2).

5

Here, counsel has met all withdrawal requirements. As required by Local Rule

6

182(d), counsel has provided notice to plaintiff and opposing parties and filed the instant

7

motion seeking leave, ECF No. 14. Counsel has also complied with the Rules of Professional

8

Conduct. He attests in his declaration that “[p]laintiff will not speak to” him and that they

9

“cannot effectively communicate . . . .” Id. As such, the court finds that the “break down” in

10

communication “renders it unreasonably difficult for [counsel] to carry out the employment

11

effectively.” CAL. RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 3-700(C)(2). The court further finds a sixty-

12

day extension to oppose defendant’s motion for summary judgment sufficient to avoid

13

prejudice to plaintiff.

14

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record for plaintiff is

15

GRANTED. Plaintiff is likewise GRANTED sixty (60) days from the date of this order to file

16

her opposition to defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 21, 2014.

19
20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2