Molina v. County of Tulare

Opinion

EDNA MOLINA, individually, and as Case No. 1:23-CV-00724-EPG successor-in-interest of the Estate of Lorenzo Molina, et al., ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSELS’ MOTION TO WITHDRAW Plaintiffs, (ECF No. 37). v. ORDER STAYING CASE AND DIRECTING COUNTY OF TULARE, et al., PLAINTIFFS TO FILE NOTICE Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE DUE JULY 19, 2024 Plaintiffs Edna Molina, Ashley Molina, Lorenzo Molina, Sr., and Maria Molina proceed on state and federal claims related to the death of their family member, Lorenzo Molina, Jr. (ECF Nos. 1, 12). On March 8, 2024, counsel for Plaintiffs, the Carrillo Law Firm, LLP, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. (ECF No. 37). On April 19, 2024, the Court held a telephonic hearing on counsels’ motion. (ECF No. 39). Plaintiffs’ counsel, Dominique L. Boubion and Michael S. Carrillo, were present at the hearing, as well as Plaintiffs Edna Molina and Ashley Molina. Plaintiffs’ counsel arranged for the translation services of certified court interpreter, Vanessa Lopez. William E. Camy appeared on behalf of Defendants. At the hearing, after no objections, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ counsels’ motion to withdraw. The Court also discussed the next steps of this case with the parties. Here, Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges eight claims, including claims brought individually by all Plaintiffs for interference with familial relations in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, most of Plaintiffs’ claims are brought by Plaintiffs Edna Molina and Ashley Molina both individually and as successors in interest to Lorenzo Molina, Jr. pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §377.60. (ECF No. 12 at 3). As discussed at the hearing, Plaintiffs may not be able to assert these claims unless they are represented by an attorney. See Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he privilege to represent oneself pro se ... is personal to the litigant and does not extend to other parties or entities.”); Saldivar v. Wright, Case No.: 2-20-cv-02081-CAS- PD, 2021 WL 6618553, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2021) (citing Simon, 546 F.3d at 664-67) (“Plaintiff must obtain legal representation in order to proceed on [his Fourth Amendment wrongful death] cause of action as a successor in interest.”); but see Dalavai v. The Regents, Case No.: 22-cv-1992-CAB-WVG, 2023 WL 2801201, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2023) (citing cases) (“[S]ome courts have determined that pro se successors in interest can establish [successor in interest claims brought pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 377] without counsel.”). Plaintiffs have stated that they intend to retain new counsel but request ninety days to do so. As discussed at the hearing, the Court directs Plaintiffs to file a notice regarding whether they have new counsel and if they plan to go forward on their claims by no later than July 19, 2024. If Plaintiffs retain new counsel, this case will go forward with Plaintiffs’ new counsel. If Plaintiffs do not have counsel by this date, Defendants shall file a brief regarding whether this case should go forward. The Court also stayed this case, except as indicated below. If Plaintiffs file a notice of new counsel, the Court will set new dates and deadlines in this case. If Plaintiffs do not retain new counsel, this case may also be subject to dismissal for the reasons stated above. II. ORDER Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. Attorneys Dominique L. Boubion and Michael S. Carrillo’s motion to withdraw as counsel (ECF No. 37) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to ] terminate Attorney Boubion and Carillo as counsel from this case. 2. Further, all future orders and pleadings shall be served on Plaintiffs at the following addresses: a. Edna Molina, 10432 Colima Rd., Whitter, CA 90604 b. Ashley Molina, 10432 Colima Rd., Whitter, CA 90604 c. Maria Molina, 678 S. Duncan Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90022 d. Lorenzo Molina, Sr., 678 S. Duncan Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90022 g 3. The Court directs Plaintiffs to promptly inform the Court of any change of address.

4. By no later than July 19, 2024, Plaintiffs shall file a written notice with the Court indicating whether they have obtained new counsel and whether they plan to go forward " in this case. Plaintiffs are advised that failure to file written notice may result in dismissal. " 5. If Plaintiffs do not have counsel by this date or indicate in their notice that they intend to proceed on their claims without counsel, Defendants shall file a brief with the Court regarding whether this case should go forward by no later than August 19, 2024. 6. Defendants’ pending discovery requests are considered withdrawn. Defendants shall re- serve those requests if the case goes forward. 7. Except as provided in this order, this case is STAYED until further order by the Court. 1g | IT ISSO ORDERED. Dated: _April 19, 2024 [sf Fey □ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE