Luna et al v. U.S. Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 19

ORDER Denying (Doc. 17 ) 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)

Luna et al v. U.S. Bank, N.A. et al

Doc. 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 OSCAR and YVONNE LUNA, 12 13 v. 14 U.S. BANK, N.A., et al., 15 16 17 Defendants. Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 09-cv-2807-L(NLS) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD AND REJECTING NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On October 18, 2010 Kent Wilson, Esq., counsel for Plaintiffs Oscar Luna and Yvonne

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

23 court. Darby v. City of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992); Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 24 3-700(A)(1). Accordingly, a notice alone is insufficient to accomplish withdrawal. Because 25 both of Mr. Wilson's filings are styled as a "notice," this is insufficient, and the notices are 26 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. 27
09cv2807
1

Dockets.Justia.com

1 REJECTED. 2 To the extent either of Mr. Wilson's notices can be construed as a motion for leave to

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

7 Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(B)(3). Rule 3-700(B)(3) applies when an attorney's 8 "mental or physical condition renders it unreasonably difficult to carry out the employment 9 effectively." This is at odds with Mr. Wilson's representation in court. At the hearing held on 10 September 22, 2010 he represented that he had already resigned from the Bar and was no longer 11 an attorney. The court is therefore not inclined to grant leave to withdraw under Rule 312 700(B)(3). 13 Finally, this court requires counsel to "comply with the standards of professional conduct

14 required of members of the State Bar of California, and decisions of any court applicable 15 thereto." Civ. Loc. R. 83.4(b). Pursuant to California Rule of Professional Conduct 316 700(A)(2), an attorney may not withdraw until he "has taken reasonable steps to avoid 17 reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the right of the client." Mr. Wilson has not indicated if, or 18 how, he has protected his clients from reasonably foreseeable prejudice occasioned by his 19 withdrawal. Mr. Wilson's motion to withdraw is therefore denied on this alternative ground. 20 For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Wilson's notices of withdrawal are REJECTED and, to

21 the extent either notice can be construed as a motion for leave to withdraw, it is DENIED. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 DATED: November 3, 2010 24 25 26 COPY TO: M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge

HON. NITA L. STORMES 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL
2
09cv2807