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)

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