Tresca v. Global Payments Check Services, Inc.
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/3/17 ORDERING that Ms. Kent's Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel (ECF No. 8 ) is GRANTED; and Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE, in writing within thirty (30) days of this order, why this case should not be dismissed. (Becknal, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GLOBAL PAYMENTS CHECK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
This matter is before the Court on Trinette G. Kent’s Motion for Leave to Withdraw as
Counsel for Plaintiff. (ECF No. 8.) Ms. Kent currently represents Plaintiff Sheree Tresca
(“Plaintiff”). For the reasons set forth below, Ms. Kent’s motion is hereby GRANTED.
Pursuant to Local Rule 182(d), an attorney who has appeared before the Court may not
withdraw and leave the client in propria persona “without leave of court upon noticed motion and
notice to client and all other parties who have appeared.” The attorney must also provide an
affidavit with the current or last known address of the client and his or her efforts to notify the
client of the motion to withdraw. Id. The California Rules of Professional Conduct govern and
set the requirements for withdrawal of attorneys. Rule 3-700(A) provides that an attorney shall
not withdraw from employment in a proceeding unless (1) he or she requests permission from the
tribunal to withdraw and (2) he or she “has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable
prejudice to the rights of the client.” Attorneys cannot request a withdrawal unless the client “by
other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the [attorney] to carry out the employment
effectively.” CAL. RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 3-700(C). District courts also have sound
discretion to decide whether to permit counsel to withdraw. See La Grand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d
1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998).
Ms. Kent seeks to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff on the grounds that Ms. Kent and her
firm’s staff have made a number of attempts to contact Plaintiff through telephone, email, text
message, and letters within the past month, and Plaintiff has not responded. (ECF No. 8-1 at 2.)
Plaintiff’s telephone number and email no longer seem to be working. (ECF No. 8-1 at 2.)
Plaintiff has made it “unreasonably difficult” for Ms. Kent to serve “effectively.” In the instant
motion, Ms. Kent has satisfied the requirements of Local Rule 182(d) and California Rules of
Professional Conduct 3-700(A) and (C). Ms. Kent has filed the correct motion to withdraw.
(ECF No. 8-1.) Additionally, she has provided the Court with Plaintiff’s last known address, as
well as documentation of her attempts to contact and notify Plaintiff of this motion. (ECF No. 8-
1 at 2–3.)
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. Ms. Kent’s Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED; and
2. Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE, in writing within thirty (30) days of this
order, why this case should not be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 3, 2017
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
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?