Gomez v. Plaza Home Mortgage, Inc. et al

Filing 21

ORDER Denying (Doc. 19 ) 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)

Gomez v. Plaza Home Mortgage, Inc. et al

Doc. 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LUCIA GOMEZ, 11 12 v. 13 PLAZA HOME MORTGAGE, INC., et al. 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 09cv2855-L(RBB) 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 Plaintiff Lucia C. Gomez, filed a

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

22 court. Darby v. City of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992); Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 23 3-700(A)(1). Accordingly, a notice alone is insufficient to accomplish withdrawal. Because 24 both of Mr. Wilson's filings are styled as a "notice," this is insufficient, and the notices are 25 REJECTED. 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.
09cv2855
1

Dockets.Justia.com

1

Without an explanation, Mr. Wilson represents that he is withdrawing based on California

2 Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(B)(3). Rule 3-700(B)(3) applies when an attorney's 3 "mental or physical condition renders it unreasonably difficult to carry out the employment 4 effectively." This is at odds with Mr. Wilson's representation in court. At the hearing held on 5 September 22, 2010 he represented that he had already resigned from the Bar and was no longer 6 an attorney. The court is therefore not inclined to grant leave to withdraw under Rule 37 700(B)(3). 8 Finally, this court requires counsel to "comply with the standards of professional conduct

9 required of members of the State Bar of California, and decisions of any court applicable 10 thereto." Civ. Loc. R. 83.4(b). Pursuant to California Rule of Professional Conduct 311 700(A)(2), an attorney may not withdraw until he "has taken reasonable steps to avoid 12 reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the right of the client." Mr. Wilson has not indicated if, or 13 how, he has protected his client from reasonably foreseeable prejudice occasioned by his 14 withdrawal. Therefore, to the extent either of Mr. Wilson's notices can be construed as a motion 15 for leave to withdraw, the motion is DENIED. 16 For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Wilson's notices of withdrawal are REJECTED and, to

17 the extent either notice can be construed as a motion for leave to withdraw, it is DENIED. 18 19 20 DATED: November 3, 2010 21 22 23 COPY TO: 24 HON. RUBEN B. BROOKS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL 26 27 28
2
09cv2855

IT IS SO ORDERED.

M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge