Dwedar v. State of Nevada Ex Rel. Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education, on Behalf of the University of Nevada, Reno

D. Nevada

Dwedar v. State of Nevada Ex Rel. Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education, on Behalf of the University of Nevada, Reno

DecidedSeptember 10, 2025

Docket3:24-cv-00583

StatusUnknown

This text of Dwedar v. State of Nevada Ex Rel. Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education, on Behalf of the University of Nevada, Reno (Dwedar v. State of Nevada Ex Rel. Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education, on Behalf of the University of Nevada, Reno) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dwedar v. State of Nevada Ex Rel. Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education, on Behalf of the University of Nevada, Reno, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 DAHLIA DWEDAR, Case No. 3:24-CV-00583-MMD-CLB 5 v. Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO State of Nevada Ex Rel. Board of WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND 6 Regents of the Nevada System of PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE Higher Education, on Behalf of the ELECTRONICALLY 7 University of Nevada, Reno, [ECF Nos. 34, 35] 8 ] Defendants. 9 10 This case was filed by Plaintiff Dahlia Dwedar (“Dwedar”) against Defendant State 11 of Nevada Ex Rel. Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education, on 12 Behalf of the University of Nevada, Reno. Currently pending before the Court are three 13 motions: (1) a motion filed by Dwedar’s attorney, Trevor Hatfield (“Hatfield”), to withdraw 14 as counsel for Dwedar, (ECF No. 34); (2) a motion filed by Dwedar seeking permission 15 to use the Court’s electronic filing system, (ECF No. 35); and (3) a motion filed by Dwedar 16 seeking to compel Hatfield to return the retainer paid in this case, production of withheld 17 correspondence, to vacate the attorney’s lien, and for an order to show cause (“motion 18 regarding former counsel”), (ECF No. 36.) The Court will address each motion in turn. 19 I. MOTIONS 20 A. Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (ECF No. 34) 21 On August 28, 2025, Hatfield filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Dwedar. 22 (ECF No. 34.) Hatfield provides a sworn declaration stating he was terminated as counsel 23 by Dwedar and believes that he has a conflict with Dwedar and cannot continue as her 24 counsel. (Id. at 3.) 25 “[A]n attorney cannot withdraw from a case without consent of the court.” Lovvorn 26 v. Johnston, 118 F.2d 704, 706 (9th Cir. 1941). “Courts maintain the discretion to grant 27 or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel.” Williams v. Cnty. of Fresno, 562 F. Supp. 3d 1 after appearing in a case, the attorney must file a motion or stipulation and serve it on the 2 affected client and opposing counsel. The affected client may, but is not required to, file 3 a response to the attorney's motion within 14 days of the filing of the motion, unless the 4 court orders otherwise.”). 5 On September 8, 2025, Dwedar filed a motion requesting authorization to register 6 for the Court’s electronic filing system, (ECF No. 35), and motion regarding former 7 counsel. (ECF No. 36.) While Dwedar did not file a response to Hatfield’s motion to 8 withdraw, the Court construes Dwedar’s request to electronically file documents with the 9 Court herself as a consent to Hatfield’s withdrawal. The motion regarding former counsel 10 strengthens this inference, as Dwedar makes serious allegations about Hatfield’s conduct 11 and refers to him as her former counsel throughout the motion. (See ECF No. 36.) 12 Consequently, good cause exists and Hatfield’s motion to withdraw as Dwedar’s 13 attorney, (ECF No. 34), is granted. Hatfield shall provide Dwedar with her complete case 14 file on or before October 8, 2025. 15 Plaintiff is advised that although she is now proceeding pro se, she is still expected 16 to fully participate in the discovery process, including in the deposition of herself and her 17 husband regarding the fraudulent documents and handwriting. If Plaintiff fails to comply, 18 she places herself at risk of sanctions. 19 B. Motion for Electronic Filing (ECF No. 35) 20 The Court next addresses Dwedar’s motion to have permission electronically file 21 documents. (ECF No. 13.) Having the review the motion, the Court finds that good cause 22 appears to grant this request, and Dwedar’s motion for permission to file electronically, 23 (ECF No. 13), is therefore GRANTED. In order for Plaintiff to file documents electronically, 24 she is required to register and maintain a CM/ECF account, which can be found on the 25 court’s website (www.nvd.uscourts.gov) under the Self Help/E-Filing Permission link. 26 Plaintiff shall also complete the CM/ECF tutorial and become familiar with the Electronic 27 Filing Procedures, Best Practices and the Civil Events Menu that are accessible on the 1 applicable only to this case. 2 C. Motion Regarding Former Counsel (ECF No. 36) 3 Finally, the Court turns to Dwedar’s motion regarding her former counsel. On 4 September 8, 2025, Dwedar filed a motion seeking the return of the retainer she paid to 5 Hatfield, the Notice of Lien filed by Hatfield be vacated and stricken from the docket, and 6 the issuance of an order to show cause to Hatfield for “why he should not be sanctioned 7 for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and conduct prejudicial to the 8 administration of justice.” (ECF No. 36.) Dwedar also requests that Hatfield produce her 9 complete client file, which the Court has already ordered Hatfield to provide. (Id.) Although 10 Hatfield’s request to withdraw as Dwedar’s attorney is granted, the Court orders that 11 Hatfield must still file a response to the remaining aspects of Dwedar’s motion on or before 12 Wednesday, September 24, 2025. Hatfield is advised that failure to respond to the 13 motion as ordered herein will be construed as a consent to the Court granting the motion. 14 II. CONCLUSION 15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Hatfield’s motion to withdraw as counsel, (ECF No. 16 34), is GRANTED. The Clerk shall update the docket to reflect the following information 17 for Plaintiff: 18 Dahlia Dwedar 19 318 N. Cypress Estates Cir. Spring, TX 77388 20 202-446-8080 deedwedar@gmail.com 21 22 The Clerk shall SEND a copy of this order to Plaintiff at the above address. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hatfield shall send Dwedar her complete case 24 file on or before Friday, October 10, 2025. 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dwedar’s motion to electronically file, (ECF No. 26 35), is GRANTED. 27 /// 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hatfield shall respond to Dwedar’s motion 2| regarding former counsel, (ECF No. 36), on or before Wednesday, September 24, 2025. 3 DATED: _September 10, 2025 , »

UNITED STATES'‘MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 DAHLIA DWEDAR, Case No. 3:24-CV-00583-MMD-CLB 5 v. Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO State of Nevada Ex Rel. Board of WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND 6 Regents of the Nevada System of PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE Higher Education, on Behalf of the ELECTRONICALLY 7 University of Nevada, Reno, [ECF Nos. 34, 35] 8 ] Defendants. 9 10 This case was filed by Plaintiff Dahlia Dwedar (“Dwedar”) against Defendant State 11 of Nevada Ex Rel. Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education, on 12 Behalf of the University of Nevada, Reno. Currently pending before the Court are three 13 motions: (1) a motion filed by Dwedar’s attorney, Trevor Hatfield (“Hatfield”), to withdraw 14 as counsel for Dwedar, (ECF No. 34); (2) a motion filed by Dwedar seeking permission 15 to use the Court’s electronic filing system, (ECF No. 35); and (3) a motion filed by Dwedar 16 seeking to compel Hatfield to return the retainer paid in this case, production of withheld 17 correspondence, to vacate the attorney’s lien, and for an order to show cause (“motion 18 regarding former counsel”), (ECF No. 36.) The Court will address each motion in turn. 19 I. MOTIONS 20 A. Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (ECF No. 34) 21 On August 28, 2025, Hatfield filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Dwedar. 22 (ECF No. 34.) Hatfield provides a sworn declaration stating he was terminated as counsel 23 by Dwedar and believes that he has a conflict with Dwedar and cannot continue as her 24 counsel. (Id. at 3.) 25 “[A]n attorney cannot withdraw from a case without consent of the court.” Lovvorn 26 v. Johnston, 118 F.2d 704, 706 (9th Cir. 1941). “Courts maintain the discretion to grant 27 or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel.” Williams v. Cnty. of Fresno, 562 F. Supp. 3d 1 after appearing in a case, the attorney must file a motion or stipulation and serve it on the 2 affected client and opposing counsel. The affected client may, but is not required to, file 3 a response to the attorney's motion within 14 days of the filing of the motion, unless the 4 court orders otherwise.”). 5 On September 8, 2025, Dwedar filed a motion requesting authorization to register 6 for the Court’s electronic filing system, (ECF No. 35), and motion regarding former 7 counsel. (ECF No. 36.) While Dwedar did not file a response to Hatfield’s motion to 8 withdraw, the Court construes Dwedar’s request to electronically file documents with the 9 Court herself as a consent to Hatfield’s withdrawal. The motion regarding former counsel 10 strengthens this inference, as Dwedar makes serious allegations about Hatfield’s conduct 11 and refers to him as her former counsel throughout the motion. (See ECF No. 36.) 12 Consequently, good cause exists and Hatfield’s motion to withdraw as Dwedar’s 13 attorney, (ECF No. 34), is granted. Hatfield shall provide Dwedar with her complete case 14 file on or before October 8, 2025. 15 Plaintiff is advised that although she is now proceeding pro se, she is still expected 16 to fully participate in the discovery process, including in the deposition of herself and her 17 husband regarding the fraudulent documents and handwriting. If Plaintiff fails to comply, 18 she places herself at risk of sanctions. 19 B. Motion for Electronic Filing (ECF No. 35) 20 The Court next addresses Dwedar’s motion to have permission electronically file 21 documents. (ECF No. 13.) Having the review the motion, the Court finds that good cause 22 appears to grant this request, and Dwedar’s motion for permission to file electronically, 23 (ECF No. 13), is therefore GRANTED. In order for Plaintiff to file documents electronically, 24 she is required to register and maintain a CM/ECF account, which can be found on the 25 court’s website (www.nvd.uscourts.gov) under the Self Help/E-Filing Permission link. 26 Plaintiff shall also complete the CM/ECF tutorial and become familiar with the Electronic 27 Filing Procedures, Best Practices and the Civil Events Menu that are accessible on the 1 applicable only to this case. 2 C. Motion Regarding Former Counsel (ECF No. 36) 3 Finally, the Court turns to Dwedar’s motion regarding her former counsel. On 4 September 8, 2025, Dwedar filed a motion seeking the return of the retainer she paid to 5 Hatfield, the Notice of Lien filed by Hatfield be vacated and stricken from the docket, and 6 the issuance of an order to show cause to Hatfield for “why he should not be sanctioned 7 for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and conduct prejudicial to the 8 administration of justice.” (ECF No. 36.) Dwedar also requests that Hatfield produce her 9 complete client file, which the Court has already ordered Hatfield to provide. (Id.) Although 10 Hatfield’s request to withdraw as Dwedar’s attorney is granted, the Court orders that 11 Hatfield must still file a response to the remaining aspects of Dwedar’s motion on or before 12 Wednesday, September 24, 2025. Hatfield is advised that failure to respond to the 13 motion as ordered herein will be construed as a consent to the Court granting the motion. 14 II. CONCLUSION 15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Hatfield’s motion to withdraw as counsel, (ECF No. 16 34), is GRANTED. The Clerk shall update the docket to reflect the following information 17 for Plaintiff: 18 Dahlia Dwedar 19 318 N. Cypress Estates Cir. Spring, TX 77388 20 202-446-8080 deedwedar@gmail.com 21 22 The Clerk shall SEND a copy of this order to Plaintiff at the above address. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hatfield shall send Dwedar her complete case 24 file on or before Friday, October 10, 2025. 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dwedar’s motion to electronically file, (ECF No. 26 35), is GRANTED. 27 /// 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hatfield shall respond to Dwedar’s motion 2| regarding former counsel, (ECF No. 36), on or before Wednesday, September 24, 2025. 3 DATED: _September 10, 2025 , »

UNITED STATES'‘MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dwedar v. State of Nevada Ex Rel. Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education, on Behalf of the University of Nevada, Reno, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dwedar-v-state-of-nevada-ex-rel-board-of-regents-of-the-nevada-system-of-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack