Tresca v. Global Payments Check Services, Inc.

Filing 14

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHEREE TRESCA, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 2:17-cv-00084-TLN-KJN Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL PAYMENTS CHECK SERVICES, INC., ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF Defendant. This matter is before the Court on Trinette G. Kent’s Motion for Leave to Withdraw as 18 Counsel for Plaintiff. (ECF No. 8.) Ms. Kent currently represents Plaintiff Sheree Tresca 19 (“Plaintiff”). For the reasons set forth below, Ms. Kent’s motion is hereby GRANTED. 20 Pursuant to Local Rule 182(d), an attorney who has appeared before the Court may not 21 22 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 23 affidavit with the current or last known address of the client and his or her efforts to notify the 24 client of the motion to withdraw. Id. The California Rules of Professional Conduct govern and 25 set the requirements for withdrawal of attorneys. Rule 3-700(A) provides that an attorney shall 26 not withdraw from employment in a proceeding unless (1) he or she requests permission from the 27 tribunal to withdraw and (2) he or she “has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable 28 1 1 prejudice to the rights of the client.” Attorneys cannot request a withdrawal unless the client “by 2 other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the [attorney] to carry out the employment 3 effectively.” CAL. RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 3-700(C). District courts also have sound 4 discretion to decide whether to permit counsel to withdraw. See La Grand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 5 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998). 6 Ms. Kent seeks to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff on the grounds that Ms. Kent and her 7 firm’s staff have made a number of attempts to contact Plaintiff through telephone, email, text 8 message, and letters within the past month, and Plaintiff has not responded. (ECF No. 8-1 at 2.) 9 Plaintiff’s telephone number and email no longer seem to be working. (ECF No. 8-1 at 2.) 10 Plaintiff has made it “unreasonably difficult” for Ms. Kent to serve “effectively.” In the instant 11 motion, Ms. Kent has satisfied the requirements of Local Rule 182(d) and California Rules of 12 Professional Conduct 3-700(A) and (C). Ms. Kent has filed the correct motion to withdraw. 13 (ECF No. 8-1.) Additionally, she has provided the Court with Plaintiff’s last known address, as 14 well as documentation of her attempts to contact and notify Plaintiff of this motion. (ECF No. 8- 15 1 at 2–3.) 16 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 17 1. Ms. Kent’s Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED; and 18 2. Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE, in writing within thirty (30) days of this 19 order, why this case should not be dismissed. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: October 3, 2017 22 23 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?