Stiles v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, et al

Filing 630

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/2/2023 GRANTING 625 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs. Attorney Joseph M. Alioto and Josephine Leticia Alioto TERMINATED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHARIDAN STILES, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

v.
WALMART, INC., et al.,

15

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-02234-DAD-DMC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD
FOR PLAINTIFFS
(Doc. No. 625)

16
17
18

The matter came before the court on July 18, 2023 for a hearing on the motion to

19

withdraw as counsel of record for plaintiffs filed on June 9, 2023. (Doc. No. 625.) Attorneys

20

Joseph M. Alioto and Josephine Alioto appeared by video on behalf of plaintiffs, and plaintiff

21

Sharidan Stiles appeared by video as well. Attorneys Roy Anderson and Eric S. Engel appeared

22

by video on behalf of defendant American International Industries, Inc. (“American”), and

23

attorney Jeremy Ostrander appeared by video on behalf of defendant Walmart, Inc. (“Walmart”).

24

For the reasons explained below, the motion to withdraw as counsel of record for plaintiffs will

25

be granted.

26

In this district, an attorney’s withdrawal is governed by Local Rule 182 and the Rules of

27

Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California (“Rules of Professional Conduct”). In this

28

regard, Local Rule 182(d) provides:
1

1

5

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. Withdrawal as attorney is governed by the Rules of
Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, and the
attorney shall conform to the requirements of those Rules.

6

L.R. 182(d). Rule 1.16 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct provides that an attorney

7

shall withdraw from the representation of a client if the client discharges the lawyer. Cal. R. Prof.

8

Conduct 1.16(a)(4). Rule 1.16 also provides several grounds upon which an attorney may seek to

9

withdraw, including when: (i) the client’s conduct “renders it unreasonably difficult for the

2
3
4

10

lawyer to carry out the representation effectively”; or (ii) “the client knowingly and freely assents

11

to termination of the representation.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(b)(4), (6) (emphasis added).

12

However, representation shall not be terminated until the attorney “has taken reasonable steps to

13

avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, such as giving the client

14

sufficient notice to permit the client to retain other counsel.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(d).

15

The decision to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 1.16(b) is

16

ultimately committed to the discretion of the trial court. “In ruling on a motion to withdraw as

17

counsel, courts consider: (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal

18

may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice;

19

and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Beard v.

20

Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 3:07-cv-00594-WQH-NLS, 2008 WL 410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb.

21

13, 2008) (citing Nat’l Career Coll., Inc. v. Spellings, No. 1:07-cv-00075-HG-LK, 2007 WL

22

2048776, at *2 (D. Haw. July 11, 2007)); see also CE Res., Inc. v. Magellan Grp., LLC, No. 2:08-

23

cv-02999-MCE-KJM, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2009) (noting that

24

“[u]ltimately, the court’s ruling must involve a balancing of the equities”).

25

Relevant here, with regard to plaintiff Stiles 4 U, Inc., Local Rule 183 further provides

26

that “[a] corporation or other entity may appear only by an attorney.” L.R. 183(a). “While

27

individuals may appear in propria persona, corporations and other entities may appear only

28

through an attorney; an unrepresented entity cannot file any pleadings, make or oppose any
2

1

motions, or present any evidence to contest liability. Caveman Foods, LLC v. Payne’s Caveman

2

Foods, LLC, No. 2:12-cv-01112-WBS-CKD, 2015 WL 6736801, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2015)

3

(citing Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993)).

4

In the pending motion, plaintiffs’ counsel states that plaintiff “Stiles made repeated

5

demands for plaintiffs’ counsel to withdraw from representation.” (Doc. No. 625 at 3.) In

6

addition, plaintiffs’ counsel states that good cause exists to permit them to withdraw from

7

representing plaintiffs because plaintiff Stiles’ conduct has made continuing representation

8

difficult, causing their attorney-client relationship to break down. (Id. at 4.) For example,

9

plaintiff Stiles acted against counsel’s recommendation by communicating directly with defense

10

counsel and attempting to communicate directly with the court through improper ex parte

11

communications sent by email to the courtroom deputy—communications which the court

12

disregarded. (Id.) Moreover, as counsel explains in the pending motion, “contrary to counsel’s

13

advice, Stiles instructed Plaintiffs’ Counsel not to appeal the Court’s judgment, causing counsel

14

and Plaintiffs to reach an impasse and maintain differing opinions and positions regarding the

15

handling of Plaintiffs’ case to the point that they have irreconcilable differences in prosecuting

16

this case further.” (Id.) Further, plaintiffs’ counsel asserts that their withdrawal will not

17

prejudice either party nor cause undue delay in this case because judgment was already entered

18

against plaintiffs on all of plaintiffs’ claims. (Id. at 4–5.) Notably, the only remaining issue in

19

this case is defendant American’s pending motion for an award of attorneys’ fees.1 Attorney

20

Joseph Alioto submitted a declaration in support of the pending motion in which he states that he

21

provided written and verbal notice to plaintiffs regarding the pending motion to withdraw, and he

22

includes the contact information for plaintiff Sharidan Stiles: 2570 Harlan Drive, Redding,

23

California, 96003; [e-mail], [e-mail]. (Doc. No. 625-1 at 3.)

24

At the July 18, 2023 hearing on the pending motion to withdraw, plaintiffs’ counsel

25

reiterated that plaintiff Stiles had discharged them from representing her and her company, Stiles

26
27
28

1

At the status conference held on May 23, 2023 and at the July 18, 2023 hearing, defendants
American and Walmart represented to the court that they intend to voluntarily dismiss their
counterclaims in this action. (See Doc. Nos. 624, 628.)
3

1

4 U, Inc., in this action and in the related actions pending before the undersigned.2 However, at

2

that hearing, plaintiff Stiles stated that she had not discharged her counsel and that she wished for

3

them to continue representing her in this action and the related actions because she has no ability

4

to represent herself or to obtain new counsel. Attorneys Joseph Alioto and Josephine Alioto

5

expressed surprise at plaintiff Stiles’ stated position, emphasizing that there are irreconcilable

6

differences between them on the one hand, and plaintiffs on the other, such that they could not

7

continue to represent plaintiffs under the circumstances. In particular, plaintiffs’ counsel

8

highlighted plaintiffs’ lack of cooperation and her insistence that they not file a notice of appeal

9

of this court’s summary judgment order—despite counsel’s advice and guidance regarding the

10

importance of filing such an appeal and the consequences that would flow from failing to timely

11

do so. Nevertheless, in light of plaintiff Stiles’ stated position at the hearing, and due to an

12

apparent belief on attorney Joseph Alioto’s part that defendants would be liable for plaintiffs’

13

attorneys’ fees if defendants followed through with their intention to dismiss their

14

counterclaims—a belief that this court does not share—attorney Joseph Alioto suggested that

15

counsel for all parties might be able to reach a resolution of the outstanding issues in this case

16

without necessitating further involvement by the court. Though skeptical, the court nonetheless

17

stated that it would not rule on the pending motion to withdraw for ten days, i.e., no sooner than

18

July 28, 2023. The court invited the parties to file any further submissions for the court’s

19

consideration by that date, including specifically directing defendant American to file a

20

supplemental brief in support of its pending motion for attorneys’ fees. (Doc. No. 628.) Other

21

than defendant American’s supplement brief in support of its motion for attorneys’ fees (Doc. No.

22

629), no party has filed anything else for the court’s consideration. Notably, plaintiffs have not

23

filed any further briefing or requests, nor a substitution of counsel to replace attorneys Joseph

24

Alioto and Josephine Alioto with new counsel.

25

2

26
27
28

Plaintiffs’ counsel filed motions to withdraw as counsel of record for plaintiff Stiles in each of
the related cases: American Int’l Industries v. Stiles, 2:19-cv-01218-DAD-DMC (Doc. No. 57);
Stiles v. Target Corporation, 2:19-cv-02144-DAD-DMC (Doc. No. 50); Stiles v. CVS Pharmacy
Inc., 2:19-cv-02145-DAD-DMC (Doc. No. 44); Stiles v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 2:19-cv-02146DAD-DMC (Doc. No. 58). The court will resolve those motions by issuing separate orders in
each of those cases.
4

Having considered plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion, attorney Joseph Alioto’s declaration, and

1
2

plaintiff Stiles’ position as stated at the July 18, 2023 hearing, the court finds that counsel has

3

described sufficient grounds for withdrawal consistent with the California Rules of Professional

4

Conduct and has complied with the Local Rules’ procedural requirements for withdrawal. While

5

the court is not unsympathetic to the challenges that plaintiffs have faced in obtaining new

6

counsel to represent them in this action, plaintiffs have known for several months that their

7

counsel would be seeking to withdraw as counsel in this action. Indeed, according to counsel’s

8

declaration, plaintiff Stiles had made repeated demands that they withdraw from representing her

9

in this case and in the related cases pending in this court. Given the procedural posture of this

10

case, the court is not willing to let this case linger on any further. Accordingly, the court will

11

grant the pending motion to withdraw as plaintiffs’ counsel (Doc. No. 617) and will set a deadline

12

for plaintiff Stiles3 to file an opposition to defendant American’s pending motion for attorneys’

13

fees.

14

For the reasons explained above,

15

1.

16

Plaintiffs’ counsel Joseph M. Alioto’s and Josephine Alioto’s motion to withdraw
as counsel of record for plaintiffs (Doc. No. 625) is granted;

17

2.

Attorneys Joseph M. Alioto and Josephine Alioto shall comply with all obligations

18

under Rule 1.16(e) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct regarding

19

release of a client’s papers and property and return of any unearned fees;

20

3.

court’s orders and the Local Rules of this district;

21
22

4.

23
/////

25

3

27
28

The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate attorney Joseph M. Alioto and
Josephine Alioto as the counsel of record for plaintiffs;

24

26

Plaintiff Sharidan Stiles is substituted in pro se and is directed to comply with the

As noted above, plaintiff Stiles 4 U, Inc. cannot proceed in this action without counsel. Given
that the court has already entered judgment in favor of defendants on all of plaintiffs’ claims
(Doc. Nos. 588, 608, 610), and plaintiffs have elected not to pursue an appeal of that decision,
coupled with the fact that defendants have expressed their intent to dismiss their counterclaims
against plaintiffs, the procedural posture of this case suggests that no further action needs to be
taken with regard to plaintiff Stiles 4 U, Inc. at this time.
5

1

5.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter the following contact information as the

2

address of record for plaintiff Sharidan Stiles:

3

Sharidan Stiles
2570 Harlan Drive
Redding, California, 96003
[e-mail], [e-mail]

4
5
6.

6

Within two (2) days from the date of entry of this order, defendant American shall

7

serve a copy of its pending motion for attorneys’ fees (Doc. No. 617) and

8

supplemental statement (Doc. No. 629) on plaintiff Stiles directly by mail and by

9

e-mail;
7.

10

Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of entry of this order, plaintiff Stiles

11

shall file either an opposition to defendant American’s motion for an award of

12

attorneys’ fees, or a statement of non-opposition to that motion;
8.

13

Plaintiff Stiles is warned that her failure to timely file an opposition will be

14

construed by the court as a non-opposition to defendant American’s motion for an

15

award of attorneys’ fees and costs;
If plaintiff Stiles files an opposition to defendant American’s motion for an award

9.

16
17

of attorneys’ fees, defendant American’s reply, if any, shall be filed no later than

18

ten (10) days after service of the opposition; and

19

10.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated:

The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order on plaintiff Stiles by mail.

August 2, 2023
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6