(PC) Rico v. Ducart

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Jorge Andrade Rico, No. 2:19-cv-01989-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Clark E. Ducart et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Shawna L. Ballard, Brian C. Baran, and Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, 18 | counsel of record for plaintiff Jorge Andrade Rico, move for leave to withdraw as counsel. Mot. 19 | ECF No. 58. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Jd. at 2.! Defendants have not opposed the motion. 20 | For the reasons below, the court denies the motion without prejudice. 21 Under Local Rule 182(d), if withdrawal would leave a client in propria persona, as it 22 | would in this case, the withdrawing attorney must seek leave of court, file a formal motion, and 23 | provide notice of the withdrawal to the client and all other parties who have appeared. E.D. Cal. 24 | L.R. 182(d). The attorney must provide an affidavit stating the efforts made to notify the client of 25 | the motion to withdraw, id., and “take[ ] reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable 26 | prejudice to the rights of the client[.]” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(d). California Rule of

' When citing page numbers on filings, the court uses the pagination automatically generated by the CM/ECF system.

1 Professional Conduct 1.16 provides several grounds upon which an attorney may seek to 2 withdraw. 3 The decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw is a matter of discretion. United 4 States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009). Courts consider several factors when 5 evaluating a motion to withdraw, including the reasons for withdrawal, possible prejudice to the 6 client and other litigants, harm to the administration of justice, and possible delay. Deal v. 7 Countrywide Home Loans, No. 09-01643, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010) 8 (citation omitted). 9 Counsel have had a longstanding relationship with plaintiff, having represented him in a 10 separate case, Rico v. Beard, No. 2:17-cv-01402-KJM-DB, and in the two appeals to the Ninth 11 Circuit arising out of it. Mot. at 3. They also filed this case in 2019 and litigated the case on 12 plaintiff’s behalf. Id. Counsel now request leave to withdraw under Local Rule 182(d), 13 representing “irreconcilable differences have arisen” such that counsel say they can no longer 14 effectively maintain the attorney-client relationship. Id.; Ballard Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 58-1; Baran 15 Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 58-2. Counsel say they have taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably 16 foreseeable prejudice to plaintiff’s rights by providing notice to plaintiff, by timely responding to 17 defendants’ motion to dismiss, and by proposing an amendment to the briefing schedule on the 18 pending motion to dismiss to “further ensure the absence of prejudice.” Mot. at 3. Lastly, they 19 argue withdrawal would not unduly delay the action. Id. at 4. 20 Apart from stating and declaring “irreconcilable differences have arisen,” counsel provide 21 no explanation regarding what the differences are or how those differences have made counsel 22 unable to effectively maintain the attorney-client relationship. See generally id. For example, 23 they do not say there has been a breakdown in communication, see, e.g., Johnson v. Patel, No. 24 14-02052, 2019 WL 2465233, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2019), or that continued representation 25 would likely result in violation of the rules of professional conduct, see, e.g., Saavedra v. Mackey, 26 No. 21-01587, 2023 WL 2752582, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2023). Counsel also do not claim 27 plaintiff’s “conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation 28 effectively[.]” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(b)(4). If counsel are concerned that providing more 1 information would violate their obligations to protect attorney-client privileged communications 2 or attorney work product, they may seek to file additional information under seal. But based on 3 the record before it, the court finds counsel have not established good cause to withdraw. 4 Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice. 5 Defendants shall file a reply in support of their renewed motion to dismiss within 10 days 6 as provided by this court’s prior order. Prior Order (Aug. 14, 2023), ECF No. 61. The hearing 7 set for September 22, 2023, is hereby vacated. 8 This order resolves ECF No. 58. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 DATED: August 29, 2023.