Schroeder v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al.

Filing 16

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RITA SCHROEDER, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:17-cv-00977-TLN-EFB Plaintiff, v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., et al., ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF Defendants. 16 17 This matter is before the Court on GianDominic Vitiello’s Motion for Leave to Withdraw 18 as Counsel for Plaintiff. (ECF No. 12.) Mr. Vitiello currently represents Plaintiff Rita Schroeder 19 (“Plaintiff”). No opposition has been filed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby 20 GRANTS Mr. Vitiello’s motion. 21 Pursuant to Local Rule 182, an attorney who has appeared before the Court may not 22 withdraw and leave the client in propria persona “without leave of court upon noticed motion and 23 notice to client and all other parties who have appeared.” L. R. 182(d). The attorney must also 24 provide an affidavit with the current or last known address of the client and his or her efforts to 25 notify the client of the motion to withdraw. Id. California Rule of Professional Conduct 3- 26 700(A) provides that an attorney shall not withdraw from employment in a proceeding unless (1) 27 he or she requests permission from the tribunal to withdraw and (2) he or she “has taken 28 reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client.” CAL. 1 1 RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 3-700(A). Attorneys cannot request a withdrawal unless the 2 client’s conduct “renders it unreasonably difficult for the [attorney] to carry out the employment 3 effectively” or “breaches an agreement or obligation to the member as to expenses or fees.” CAL. 4 RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 3-700(C). District courts have discretion to decide whether to 5 permit counsel to withdraw. See La Grand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998). 6 Mr. Vitiello provided a signed declaration stating he seeks to withdraw as counsel on the 7 grounds that Plaintiff has violated the written retainer agreement by failing to cooperate during 8 the course of the action and by failing to pay invoices. (ECF No. 12 at 3.) Mr. Vitiello detailed a 9 number of attempts made to contact Plaintiff to inform her of his intent to withdraw unless 10 communication and compliance improved. (ECF No. 12 at 3.) Mr. Vitiello argues Plaintiff has 11 made it “unreasonably difficult” for him to serve “effectively.” (ECF No. 12 at 4.) Further, Mr. 12 Vitiello has shown that his withdrawal will not cause delay and his continued representation of 13 Plaintiff may harm efficiency given the breakdown in their relationship. (ECF No. 12 at 5.) Mr. 14 Vitiello has provided the Court with Plaintiff’s last known address. (ECF No. 13 ¶ 18.) 15 Mr. Vitiello’s motion and declaration satisfy the requirements of Local Rule 182(d) and 16 California Rules of Professional Conduct 3-700(A) and (C). The parties are still at a relatively 17 early point in the litigation, and it does not appear that either delay or prejudice will result from 18 Mr. Vitiello’s withdrawal. Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, 2009 WL 89141, at *4 19 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009.) 20 Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Mr. Vitiello’s Motion for Leave to Withdraw as 21 Counsel (ECF No. 12). Pursuant to Local Rule 302, this matter is referred to the magistrate 22 judge. L.R. 302(c)(21). 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 27, 2017 25 26 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 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?