Schroeder v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al.
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 11/27/17, GRANTING Mr. Vitiello's 12 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Pursuant to Local Rule 302, this matter is REFERRED to the magistrate judge. (Kastilahn, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., et al.,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
This matter is before the Court on GianDominic Vitiello’s Motion for Leave to Withdraw
as Counsel for Plaintiff. (ECF No. 12.) Mr. Vitiello currently represents Plaintiff Rita Schroeder
(“Plaintiff”). No opposition has been filed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby
GRANTS Mr. Vitiello’s motion.
Pursuant to Local Rule 182, 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.” L. R. 182(d). 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. California Rule of Professional Conduct 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.” CAL.
RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 3-700(A). Attorneys cannot request a withdrawal unless the
client’s conduct “renders it unreasonably difficult for the [attorney] to carry out the employment
effectively” or “breaches an agreement or obligation to the member as to expenses or fees.” CAL.
RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 3-700(C). District courts have discretion to decide whether to
permit counsel to withdraw. See La Grand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998).
Mr. Vitiello provided a signed declaration stating he seeks to withdraw as counsel on the
grounds that Plaintiff has violated the written retainer agreement by failing to cooperate during
the course of the action and by failing to pay invoices. (ECF No. 12 at 3.) Mr. Vitiello detailed a
number of attempts made to contact Plaintiff to inform her of his intent to withdraw unless
communication and compliance improved. (ECF No. 12 at 3.) Mr. Vitiello argues Plaintiff has
made it “unreasonably difficult” for him to serve “effectively.” (ECF No. 12 at 4.) Further, Mr.
Vitiello has shown that his withdrawal will not cause delay and his continued representation of
Plaintiff may harm efficiency given the breakdown in their relationship. (ECF No. 12 at 5.) Mr.
Vitiello has provided the Court with Plaintiff’s last known address. (ECF No. 13 ¶ 18.)
Mr. Vitiello’s motion and declaration satisfy the requirements of Local Rule 182(d) and
California Rules of Professional Conduct 3-700(A) and (C). The parties are still at a relatively
early point in the litigation, and it does not appear that either delay or prejudice will result from
Mr. Vitiello’s withdrawal. Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, 2009 WL 89141, at *4
(E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009.)
Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Mr. Vitiello’s Motion for Leave to Withdraw as
Counsel (ECF No. 12). Pursuant to Local Rule 302, this matter is referred to the magistrate
judge. L.R. 302(c)(21).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 27, 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?