Thomas et al v. Experian Information Solutions Inc et al

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 12/22/14 ORDERING that 28 the Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED. Mark F. Anderson of Anderson, Ogilvie & Brewer LLP, is RELIEVED as counsel for Plaintiffs. The Clerk shall SERVE a copy of this Memorandum and Order on Plaintiffs at P.O. Box 4392, Citrus Heights, California 95611-4392. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 JESSE JAMES THOMAS, III and TIFFANY F. THOMAS, No. 2:13-cv-02674-MCE-CKD Plaintiffs, 13 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER v. 14 15 EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., 16 Defendant. 17 Plaintiffs Jesse James Thomas, III and Tiffany F. Thomas (collectively “Plaintiffs”) 18 19 filed this Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) case through counsel Mark F. Anderson 20 (“Anderson”) against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”); Trans Union LLC 21 (“Trans Union”); and Equifax Information Services LLC (“Equifax”). On May 14, 2014, 22 the Court dismissed with prejudice all claims against Trans Union and Equifax; 23 accordingly, Experian is the sole remaining defendant in the case. Presently before the 24 Court is Anderson’s unopposed Motion to Withdraw (“Motion”) as counsel for Plaintiffs. 25 ECF No. 28. For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.1 26 /// 27 1 28 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefs. See E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(g); ECF No. 38. 1 1 STANDARD 2 In this district, “an attorney who has appeared may not withdraw leaving the client 3 4 in propria persona without leave of court upon noticed motion and notice to the client 5 and all other parties who have appeared.” E.D. Cal. Local R. 182(d). Counsel “shall 6 provide an affidavit stating the current or last known address or addresses of the client 7 and the efforts made to notify the client of the motion to withdraw.” Id. In addition, 8 “[w]ithdrawal as attorney is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State 9 Bar of California.” Id. California’s Rules of Professional Conduct provide a number of 10 permissive grounds for withdrawal, including where the client insists upon presenting an 11 unwarranted claim or defense or “renders it unreasonably difficult” for counsel to carry 12 out his employment effectively. Cal. Rule of Prof’l Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(a), (d). Whether 13 to grant leave to withdraw is subject to the sound discretion of the Court and “may be 14 granted subject to such appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit.” E.D. Cal. Local 15 R. 182(d); Canandaigua Wine Co. v. Moldauer, 2009 WL 89141, *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 16 2009). 17 18 ANALYSIS 19 20 In his Motion and accompanying declaration, Anderson explains that he is 21 experienced with FCRA cases and has filed over eighty such actions on behalf of 22 consumers like Plaintiffs in the last three years alone. ECF No. 30; ECF No. 29 ¶ 7. 23 Based on his experience, documents produced in discovery, and the law governing this 24 case, Anderson has “concluded that continuing to litigate [the FCRA claim] is not 25 warranted by existing law and cannot be supported by a good faith argument for an 26 extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.” ECF No. 29 ¶ 8; ECF No. 30. More 27 specifically, Anderson describes that Plaintiffs “believe Experian is unquestionably liable 28 for damages,” while Anderson “believe[s] liability is a serious issue,” and that Plaintiffs 2 1 “believe the settlement value of the case and the expected verdict following trial . . . is 2 vastly greater” than what Anderson would expect as a result of settlement or a jury 3 award. Id. These disagreements have resulted in Plaintiffs “ignoring” Anderson’s advice 4 and refusing to authorize a dismissal of this action, which leads Anderson to believe he 5 “cannot successfully continue to represent [Plaintiffs].” Id. ¶ 6; ECF No. 30. Based on 6 Anderson’s averments, which were made under the penalty of perjury and have not 7 been rebutted, the Court finds that the conditions referred to in subsections (C)(1)(a) and 8 (C)(1)(d) of California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700 are present here. Therefore, 9 permissive withdrawal is proper if Anderson has complied with Local Rule 182(d). In that 10 regard, the Court finds that Anderson has in fact complied with Rule 182(d). He properly 11 noticed the Motion, which was served on Experian. Moreover, Anderson provided within 12 his declaration Plaintiffs’ current or last known address, ECF No. 29 ¶ 11, and indicated 13 he provided Plaintiffs with the Motion through electronic and traditional mail, id. ¶ 12. 14 15 CONCLUSION 16 17 18 For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that good cause exists for Anderson’s withdrawal. Accordingly: 19 1. The Motion to Withdraw, ECF No. 28, is GRANTED. 20 2. Mark F. Anderson of Anderson, Ogilvie & Brewer LLP, is RELIEVED as 21 22 23 counsel for Plaintiffs. 3. The Clerk of the Court shall SERVE a copy of this Memorandum and Order on Plaintiffs at P.O. Box 4392, Citrus Heights, California 95611-4392. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: December 22, 2014 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?