Coleman v. Shasta County

Opinion

JAMES COLEMAN, IV, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00655-TLN-DMC Plaintiffs, v. ORDER SHASTA COUNTY, et al., Defendants. This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Withdraw filed by Travis E. Stroud (“Stroud”), attorney of record for Plaintiffs James Coleman (“Coleman”) and MC Health & Wellness Center, Inc. (“MC Health”). (ECF No. 50.) Pursuant to the Court’s request, Stroud also provided an affidavit explaining in more depth his reasons for seeking withdrawal, which the Court filed under seal. (ECF No. 52.) Defendants did not file an opposition. The Court held a hearing on this matter on November 2, 2023. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion. The local rules of this district require an attorney who would withdraw and leave his or her client without representation to obtain leave of court upon a noticed motion. E.D. Cal. L.R. 182(d). Local Rule 182(d) also requires an attorney to provide notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared, and an affidavit stating the current or last known address of the client. Id. Finally, to comply with Local Rule 182(d), the attorney must conform to the requirements of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Id. The decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw is within a court’s discretion. McNally v. Eye Dog Found. for the Blind, Inc., No. 09-cv-AWI-SKO-01174, 2011 WL 1087117, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2011). District courts within this circuit have considered several factors when evaluating a motion to withdraw, including the reason for withdrawal, prejudice to the client, prejudice to the other litigants, harm to the administration of justice, and possible delay. See, e.g., Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. 09-cv-01643-SBA, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010); CE Res., Inc. v. Magellan Group, LLC, No. 08-cv-02999-MCE-KJM, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2009); Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 07-cv- 00594-WQH-NLS, 2008 WL 410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008). In the instant case, Stroud satisfied Local Rule 182(d) by filing a declaration that he informed Plaintiffs of his intent to withdraw and by providing the Court with Plaintiffs’ last known address. (ECF No. 50-2.) Stroud also established withdrawal is proper under the California Rules of Professional Conduct. More specifically, California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(4) states an attorney may withdraw from representing a client if the client “renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively.” Based on Stroud’s affidavit and the representations from Stroud and Coleman at the hearing, the Court finds it would be unreasonably difficult for Stroud to continue representing Plaintiffs. Accordingly, there is good cause to allow Stroud to withdraw. The Court notes Stroud’s motion to withdraw comes at a late stage in the litigation, as this matter is currently set for trial in January 2024. The Court admonishes Stroud to seek withdrawal earlier in future litigation to avoid prejudicing his clients. Despite Stroud’s delay in the instant case, however, the Court concludes Stroud’s reasons for withdrawal outweigh the potential prejudice to Plaintiffs and harm to the administration of justice. For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 50), leaving Plaintiffs in Pro Per. At the hearing, Coleman indicated he intends to proceed to trial in pro per. The Court notified Coleman that MC Health, Coleman’s corporation, cannot proceed without counsel under Local Rule 183. In response, Coleman indicated he intends to dismiss MC Health’s claims against Defendants. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES MC Health from this action. The jury trial remains set for January 22, 2024. The Final Pretrial Conference is hereby RESET for November 30, 2023, at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 2 before District Judge Troy L. Nunley and the Joint Pretrial Conference Statement is due not later than November 22, 2023. Date: November 6, 2023