Ramirez et al v. Quality Loan Servicing Corporation et al

Filing 33

ORDER Denying (Doc. 31 ) Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record and Rejecting Notice of Withdrawal. Kent Wilson's motion for leave to withdraw from representation is Denied and his notice of withdrawal is Rejected. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 11/3/2010. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (srm)

-RBB Ramirez et al v. Quality Loan Servicing Corporation et al

Doc. 33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RAFAEL R. RAMIREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 09cv1401-L(RBB) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD AND REJECTING NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL

QUALITY LOAN SERVICING CORP., 14 et al., 15 16 17 Defendants.

On October 18, 2010 Kent Wilson, Esq., counsel for Plaintiffs Rafael R. Ramirez,

18 Patricia Ramirez and Jose Angel Valdez, filed a pleading styled as a "Notice of Withdraw of 19 Counsel," which he docketed as a motion to withdraw.1 On October 19, 2010 he filed the same 20 pleading again and docketed it as a notice. For the reasons which follow, Mr. Wilson's motion 21 for leave to withdraw from representation is DENIED and his notice of withdrawal is 22 REJECTED. 23 An attorney representing a client before a tribunal may not withdraw except by leave of

24 court. Darby v. City of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992); Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 25 3-700(A)(1). Accordingly, a notice alone is insufficient to accomplish withdrawal. Because 26 27 For the most part, attorneys must electronically file their pleadings in this District. See Civ. Local Rule 5.4. In the process they create docket entries in the court's file and are able 28 to designate their filings as, for example, a motion or a notice.
09cv1401
1

Dockets.Justia.com

1 both of Mr. Wilson's filings are styled as a "notice," this is insufficient, and the notices are 2 REJECTED. 3 To the extent either of Mr. Wilson's notices can be construed as a motion for leave to

4 withdraw, any such motion must be served on the client. Civ. Loc. Rule 83.3(g)(3). Mr. Wilson 5 represents three clients in this case, but has served only two of them. The motion to withdraw is 6 therefore DENIED. 7 Without an explanation, Mr. Wilson represents that he is withdrawing based on California

8 Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(B)(3). Rule 3-700(B)(3) applies when an attorney's 9 "mental or physical condition renders it unreasonably difficult to carry out the employment 10 effectively." This is at odds with Mr. Wilson's representation in court. At the hearing held on 11 September 22, 2010 he represented that he had already resigned from the Bar and was no longer 12 an attorney. The court is therefore not inclined to grant leave to withdraw under Rule 313 700(B)(3). 14 Finally, this court requires counsel to "comply with the standards of professional conduct

15 required of members of the State Bar of California, and decisions of any court applicable 16 thereto." Civ. Loc. R. 83.4(b). Pursuant to California Rule of Professional Conduct 317 700(A)(2), an attorney may not withdraw until he "has taken reasonable steps to avoid 18 reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the right of the client." Mr. Wilson has not indicated if, or 19 how, he has protected his clients from reasonably foreseeable prejudice occasioned by his 20 withdrawal. Mr. Wilson's motion to withdraw is therefore denied on this alternative ground. 21 For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Wilson's notices of withdrawal are REJECTED and, to

22 the extent either notice can be construed as a motion for leave to withdraw, it is DENIED. 23 24 25 DATED: November 3, 2010 26 27 28
2
09cv1401

IT IS SO ORDERED.

M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge