Hilton v. California Casualty General Insurance Co

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: April 10, 2023
• Docket: 4:20-cv-05145
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Apr 10, 2023 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 RAYMOND HILTON, an individual, NO. 4:20-CV-5145-TOR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS AND GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW 10 CALIFORNIA CASUALTY GENERAL INSURANCE CO., 11 Defendant. 12

13 BEFORE THE COURT are Defendant’s Motion for Involuntary Dismissal 14 Under FRCP 41(B) (ECF No. 33) and Plaintiff Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw 15 (ECF No. 35). These matters were submitted for consideration without oral 16 argument. The Court has reviewed the record and files herein, and is fully 17 informed. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s Motion for Involuntary 18 Dismissal Under FRCP 41(b) (ECF No. 33) is denied and Plaintiff Counsel’s 19 Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 35) is granted. 20 // 1 DISCUSSION 2 I. Motion to Dismiss

3 Defendant moves to involuntarily dismiss Plaintiff’s case where “Plaintiff 4 has failed to participate in meaningful discovery, comply with trial deadlines, and 5 move settlement negotiations forward.” ECF No. 33 at 1. Plaintiff opposes the

6 motion on the grounds he is (1) prepared for trial but is working to settle the 7 matter, (2) slowed in resolving the case due to issues with third-party lienholders, 8 and (3) in compliance with the Fourth Amended Bench Trial Scheduling Order. 9 ECF No. 35 at 5–8.

10 A defendant may move for an involuntary dismissal where “the plaintiff fails 11 to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 12 Involuntary dismissal is a “harsh remedy” that district courts should be reluctant to

13 grant, short of “aggravated circumstances.” Von Poppenhem v. Portland Boxing 14 and Wrestling Commission, 442 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1971). District courts 15 must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 16 resolution; (2) the court’s needs to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to

17 the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits; and 18 (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 19 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). If a court dismisses a case for lack of prosecution, the

20 finding must be supported by a showing of unreasonable delay. Id. 1 Plaintiff has not failed to prosecute this action. Notably, the parties reached 2 a tentative settlement, Plaintiff has been working with third-party lienholders in

3 order to finalize the settlement, and Plaintiff has opposed the present motion. 4 While the public is interested in expeditious litigation and the Court needs to 5 manage its docket, Defendant has agreed to multiple continuances in this case,

6 minimizing a claim of prejudice. The public policy favors a disposition of this 7 case on the merits and there is the availability of less drastic sanctions. Under 8 these circumstances, dismissal is not warranted. The Court denies Defendant’s 9 motion.

10 II. Motion for Withdrawal 11 Jason A. Celski of Celski Law Firm PLLC seeks leave to withdraw as 12 Plaintiff’s counsel in this case. ECF No. 35. Mr. Celski served the present motion

13 on all parties and Plaintiff pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.2(d)(4). Id. at 4. 14 Defendant takes no position on the motion, ECF No. 41, and Plaintiff did not file a 15 response, timely or otherwise. 16 An attorney must obtain leave of Court if the withdrawal will leave the party

17 unrepresented. LCivR 83.2(d)(4). The motion to withdraw must demonstrate 18 good cause for the withdrawal. Id. Counsel for Plaintiff seeks to withdraw from 19 representation on the grounds that further representation would violate the

20 Washington State Rules of Professional Conduct because Plaintiff has not 1 maintained reasonable communication and Counsel has a fundamental 2 disagreement about the future of Plaintiff’s case. ECF No. 35 at 2. Counsel

3 indicates Plaintiff terminated his representation on February 3, 2023. Id. 4 Under these circumstances, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Counsel has 5 demonstrated good cause for withdrawal. Mr. Hilton may elect to proceed pro se,

6 28 U.S.C. § 1654, or obtain substitute counsel. 7 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 8 1. Defendant’s Motion for Involuntary Dismissal Under FRCP 41(b) (ECF 9 No. 33) is DENIED.

10 2. Plaintiff Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 35) is GRANTED. 11 Jason A. Celski of Celski Law Firm PLLC is granted leave of Court to 12 withdraw from this matter.

13 3. The Clerk of Court shall adjust the docket accordingly. 14 4. Litigants have a statutory right to self-representation in civil matters. 28 15 U.S.C. § 1654. While pro se pleadings are held to less stringent 16 standards than those prepared by attorneys, pro se litigants in the

17 ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorably than parties with 18 attorneys of record. See Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th 19 Cir. 1986). Trial courts generally do not intervene to save litigants from

20 their choice of counsel, even when a litigant chooses himself as his own 1 legal representative. Plaintiff Raymond Hilton is advised that he will be 2 held to the same standard as the party with lawyers in this case. All 3 parties are expected to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 4 Local Rules of this Court, complete discovery, meet the Court’s 5 deadlines, and participate at scheduled hearings and trial. 6 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish 7|| copies to the parties, including: 8 Raymond Hilton, P.O. Box 1125, Richland, WA 99352. 9 DATED April 10, 2023. Hun. 07: nae LOO, Of Cee 11 THOMAS O. RICE <> United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING MOTION TO