N.R. v. Del Mar Unified School District

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: February 15, 2023
• Docket: 3:21-cv-01759
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 N.R. and D.R. by and through his parent, Case No.: 21-cv-01759-AJB-WVG N.R., 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 Plaintiffs, WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR PLAINTIFFS N.R. 14 v. AND D.R. 15 DEL MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL (Doc. No. 19) 16 DISTRICT, 17 Defendant. 18 19 20 Before the Court is E. Daniel Robinson’s (“Counsel”) motion to withdraw as counsel 21 of record for Plaintiffs D.R., a minor, and N.R., individually and as the parent of D.R. (Doc. 22 No. 19.) According to Counsel, he has no choice but to seek withdrawal because N.R. 23 (“Parent”) has rendered it unreasonably difficult for him to carry out effective 24 representation. (Id. at 1–2.) Parent filed an opposition, arguing that Counsel’s reasons for 25 withdrawal are conclusory and asking the Court, in the event it grants Counsel’s motion, 26 for a stay of proceedings until she retains another attorney. (Doc. No. 23.) Counsel filed a 27 reply, maintaining that there has been a total breakdown in attorney-client relationship 1 between him and Parent, and that his duty of confidentiality limits his ability to reveal 2 communications with Parent. (Doc. No. 24.) The Court finds the matter suitable for 3 determination on the papers and without oral argument. See S.D. Cal. Civ. L. R. 7.1(d). 4 The motion hearing scheduled for March 9, 2023 is therefore VACATED. For the 5 following reasons, the Court GRANTS Counsel’s motion. 6 I. LEGAL STANDARD 7 “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” Darby v. City 8 of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992). “The decision to grant or deny 9 counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial court.” Kassab v. 10 San Diego Police Dep’t, No. 07-cv-1071 WQH (WMc), 2008 WL 251935, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 11 Jan. 29, 2008) (citation omitted). Moreover, the motion for leave to withdraw must be 12 supported by “good cause.” Evolv Health, LLC v. Cosway USA, Inc., No. 16-cv-1602 ODW 13 (ASx), 2017 WL 1534184, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2017) (citation omitted). In 14 determining whether good cause is shown, courts have considered: “(1) the reasons why 15 withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the 16 harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which 17 withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 18 07-cv-594 WQH (NLS), 2008 WL 410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008) (citation 19 omitted). 20 Additionally relevant here, Local Rule 83.4(b) provides that “any attorney permitted 21 to practice in this court shall be familiar with and comply with the standards of professional 22 conduct required of members of the State Bar of California.” S.D. Cal. Civ. L. R. 83.4(b). 23 The California Rules of Professional Conduct permit counsel to withdraw if the client’s 24 “conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment 25 effectively.” Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct R. 3-700(C)(1)(d). 26 27 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 Having reviewed Counsel’s declaration outlining the reasons for his withdrawal 3 along with Parent’s opposition, it is clear there is no longer a meaningful attorney-client 4 relationship between Counsel and Parent. According to Counsel’s declaration, Parent has 5 repeatedly expressed her distrust in and rejected his legal judgment, and that he and Parent 6 are in “absolute disagreement on how to proceed in the present case.” (Doc. No. 19-1 at 2, 7 3.) Parent does not dispute the fundamental disagreements over case strategy that have led 8 to Counsel’s motion to withdraw. (Doc. No. 23 at 7–8.) The Court thus concludes that 9 Counsel and Parent’s relationship has broken down to such an extent that Counsel can no 10 longer represent Plaintiffs in this case. See Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct R. 3-700(C)(1)(d) 11 (permitting withdrawal where the client’s “conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the 12 member to carry out the employment effectively.”). 13 The Court also notes that this case is still in its early stages—discovery has just 14 begun, and no trial date has been set. (Doc. No. 22.) Moreover, Parent has known of 15 Counsel’s intention to withdraw from representation since early September 2022 and was 16 advised at that time to begin searching for new counsel. (Doc. No. 19-1 at 2.) There is no 17 indication that Parent is unable to find new counsel. Accordingly, the Court does not find 18 that Counsel’s withdrawal will cause undue prejudice to the litigants, harm the 19 administration of justice, or unnecessarily delay the resolution of this case.1 See Beard, No. 20 07-cv-594 WQH (NLS), 2008 WL 410694, at *2. For the foregoing reasons, the Court 21 finds good cause to grant Counsel’s motion. See Kassab, No. 07-cv-1071 WQH (WMc), 22 2008 WL 251935, at *1. 23 As a final note, the Court recognizes that “a parent or guardian cannot bring an action 24 on behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer.” Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 25 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, although the Court will grant 26 27 1 | motion to withdraw, the Court orders Plaintiffs to obtain replacement counsel for D.R. 2 ||no later than 30 days of the date of this Order.’ See, e.g., Thompson v. Panama-Buena Vista 3 || Union Sch. Dist., No. 1:12-CV-00082-LJO, 2012 WL 2403541, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 25, 4 ||2012) (granting motion to withdraw as counsel and ordering new counsel be secured for 5 || the minor plaintiff). 6 Hl. CONCLUSION 7 For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS E. Daniel Robinson’s motion to 8 || withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiffs. (Doc. No. 19.) Accordingly, Plaintiff N.R. is 9 deemed pro se,* and because minors may not appear in court pro se, the Court ORDERS 10 || Plaintiffs to secure new counsel for Plaintiff D.R. and have new counsel submit a notice of 11 || appearance by_March 15, 2023. Failure to comply with the Court’s Orders, Local Rules, or 12 || Federal Rules may result in dismissal of this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); S.D. Cal. 13 L. R. 41.1. Counsel is DIRECTED to serve Plaintiffs a copy of this Order and file 14 || proof of service by February 17, 2023. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate 15 |}Counsel as attorney of record upon such filing. In an abundance of caution, the Clerk is 16 |}also DIRECTED to serve Plaintiffs a copy of this Order via mail. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 |! Dated: February 15, 2023 | ZS rz Le. 19 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 ? Parent has been on notice that she should seek new counsel for over five months. 25 ||> To the extent Parent seeks permission to utilize the court’s electronic filing system, the Court refers her to the Southern District of California’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies & Procedure 26 || Manual § 2.b, which can be found at the court’s public website at 27 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/_assets/pdf/cmecf/Electronic%20Caseo20Filing%20Procedures%20Ma nual.pdf. 28