Little v. Berryhill

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 13, 2020
• Docket: 3:19-cv-00996
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLAUDE L., Case No.: 19cv996-MDD

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF 13 v. DENISE BOURGEOIS HALEY TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL 14 ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner

of Social Security, 15 Defendant. [ECF No. 16] 16 17 Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Denise Bourgeois Haley of the Law Offices 18 of Lawrence D. Rohlfing (“Rohlfing”), moves to withdraw as attorney of record 19 for Plaintiff Claude L. (ECF No. 16). No party has opposed the motion. (See 20 Docket). For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Rohlfing’s 21 motion. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff Claude L. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action 24 against Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to 42 25 U.S.C. § 405(g), requesting judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision 26 denying his claims for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the 1 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2). 2 On July 15, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP. (ECF No. 3 8). 4 The Commissioner filed the Administrative Record on September 30, 5 2019. (ECF No. 13). On November 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for an 6 extension of time to file a merits brief. (ECF No. 14). The Court granted the 7 motion, giving Plaintiff until December 6, 2019 to file a merits brief. (ECF 8 No. 15). Plaintiff did not file a merits brief. (See Docket). Thereafter, 9 Rohlfing filed the instant motion to withdraw as Plaintiff’s counsel of record. 10 (ECF No. 16). In the accompanying declaration, Denise Bourgeois Haley 11 states that representation of Plaintiff has become unreasonably difficult. (Id. 12 at 5). In particular, Ms. Haley states that she has been unable to obtain 13 guidance and approval from Plaintiff on the “specific direction for the case.” 14 (Id.). Ms. Haley wrote, emailed, and called Plaintiff on December 2, 2019 and 15 December 6, 2019. (Id.). Ms. Haley did not receive a response from Plaintiff. 16 (Id.). 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” 19 Darby v. City of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992); see also 20 S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 83.3(f)(3). The decision to grant or deny a motion for 21 withdrawal is within the court’s sound discretion, and courts consider the 22 following factors: “(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice 23 withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might 24 cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal 25 will delay the resolution of the case.” Garrett v. Ruiz, No. 11cv2540-IEG 26 (WVG), 2013 WL 163420, at * 2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013). 1 to the California Rules of Professional Conduct, an attorney may seek to 2 withdraw from representation if the client “renders it unreasonably difficult 3 for the member to carry out the employment effectively.” Cal. Rules of 4 Professional Conduct Rule 3-700(C)(1)(d). “Refusal to participate in the 5 litigation is undoubtedly one such example.” Leatt Corp. v. Innovative Safety 6 Tech., LLC, No. 09cv1301-IEG (POR), 2010 WL 444708, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 7 2, 2010). In her accompanying declaration, Ms. Haley states that Plaintiff 8 would not provide guidance and approval on the “specific direction of the 9 case” and that she has been unable to communicate with Plaintiff at all. 10 (ECF No. 16 at 5). The Court finds that this constitutes good cause for 11 withdrawal. Further, the Commissioner does not oppose the motion, and it 12 appears that neither party will suffer prejudice as a result of Rohlfing’s 13 withdrawal given that Plaintiff may obtain another attorney or proceed pro se 14 in this matter. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Rohlfing’s motion to 15 withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff. 16 The Court cautions Plaintiff that if he does not obtain a new attorney, 17 he must proceed pro se and file a merits brief on his own behalf. 18 Additionally, failure to comply with this Order and file a merits brief may 19 result in dismissal of this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(C) (stating that 20 “the court may issue any just orders” if a party “fails to obey a . . . pretrial 21 order”); see also S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 83.1(a) (permitting the Court to impose 22 sanctions, including dismissal of an action, for failure to comply with any 23 order of the court); S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 41.1 (permitting the Court to dismiss a 24 case for failure to comply with the provisions of the local rules of this Court). 25 III. CONCLUSION 26 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s counsel’s 1 Court is instructed to terminate Denise Bourgeois Haley of the Law Offices of 2 || Lawrence D. Rohlfing as attorney of record for Plaintiff Claude L. The Clerk 3 ||of Court is further instructed to amend the Docket to reflect that Plaintiff 4 ||Claude L. is proceeding pro se with the following address: 5 Claude Randall Little 1158 Mayberry Lane 6 Vista, CA 92083 7 In light of the withdrawal, the Court swa sponte EXTENDS the 8 deadline for Plaintiff to file a merits brief to February 11, 2020. Defendant 9 must file its opposition on or before March 17, 2020. Plaintiff may file a 10 ||reply, if any, on or before March 31, 2020. 11 Finally, the Clerk of Court is instructed to mail a copy of this order to 12 Claude Randall Little’s address listed above. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 13, 2020 Mitel [> Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 16 United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27