WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
8 RENARDO ROBERTSON, et al., CASE NO. C19-1618 RSM
9 Plaintiffs, ORDER
10 v.
WESTERN WASHINGTON, 12 Defendant. 13 14 This case is before the Court on two interconnected issues. First Plaintiffs’1 counsel, Ms. 15 Teravainen, seeks to withdraw as attorney of record for Plaintiff in this case. Dkt. #41. Plaintiff, 16 Mr. Robertson, filed several “responses” to the motion. Dkts. #42, #43, #45.2 In part to allow 17
18 1 Both Renardo Robertson and Donna Robertson, his wife, are named as plaintiffs in this action. However, Ms. Robertson appears to have been included merely to account for any possible 19 community property issues. The Court therefore uses the singular in this order.
20 2 Mr. Robertson’s filings appear largely duplicative. Mr. Robertson’s first filing was unsigned. Dkt. #42. His second filing, several days later, was a slightly altered and signed copy of his first, 21 attaching an addendum and some medical records. Dkt. #43. Mr. Robertson’s third filing appears to be a copy of his second, with non-substantive markings and without the medical 22 records included with the second. Dkt. #45. The Court cannot not discern any substantive difference between the second and third filings, though the third is more legible in several places. 23 Accordingly, the Court will focus its attention on Mr. Robertson’s second filing, the most complete. To the extent the Court considers Mr. Robertson’s third filing, it is only to aid in 24 reading the second filing. 1 Mr. Robertson time to secure new representation, the parties have also filed a stipulation seeking 2 continuances of looming discovery deadlines. Dkt. #46. Mr. Robertson similarly objects to the 3 stipulated continuance by way of a pro-se response. Dkt. #47. Having considered the issues, the 4 Court grants the pending motions as follows. 5 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.2, “no attorney shall withdraw an appearance in any case,
6 civil or criminal, except by leave of court. Leave of court shall be obtained by filing a motion or 7 a stipulation and proposed order for withdrawal.” LCR 83.2(b)(1).3 “When ruling on motions 8 to withdraw, courts consider: (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice 9 withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the 10 administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the 11 case.” Bernstein v. City of Los Angeles, No. CV1903349PAGJSX, 2020 WL 4288443, at *1 12 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2020) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “The decision to grant 13 or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel is committed to the sound discretion of the 14 trial court.” Id. (citing LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998)).
15 Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw, written by Ms. Teravainen, is short on explanations. The 16 motion provides simply that her withdrawal will comply with Washington’s Rule of Professional 17 Conduct guiding attorneys in declining or terminating representations. Dkt. #41 at 1 (citing 18 WASH. RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 1.16). The motion otherwise provides that: “Professional 19 considerations make it appropriate to seek leave to withdraw in this case.” Id. This is consistent 20 with Rule 1.16’s additional guidance. See WASH. RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 1.16. cmt. [3] 21 (indicating that courts should generally accept a “lawyer’s statement that professional 22 // 23
24 3 The local rule’s exceptions do not apply here. LCR 83.2(b)(2)–(3). 1 considerations require termination of the representation”). Ms. Teravainen indicates that Rule of 2 Professional Conduct 1.6 constrains her ability to share additional details. Id.4 3 For his part, Mr. Robertson’s responses detail recent interactions with Ms. Teravainen, 4 including “red flags” that made him “question Ms. Teravainen’s litigation experience in 5 employment law.” Dkt. #43 at 2. Mr. Robertson complains of how Mr. Teravainen has pursued
6 the case, indicates his belief that Ms. Teravainen has lied to the Court “in order to withdraw,” 7 and generally details his displeasure with the progress of this case. Id. at 5–7. Mr. Robertson 8 does not clearly indicate that he would like Ms. Teravainen’s representation to continue.5 9 The Court finds that Ms. Teravainen should be granted leave to withdraw. The relevant 10 filings make clear that ongoing disputes persist between Plaintiff and his counsel. Defendant 11 does not claim that the withdrawal will prejudice it in any way. Perhaps most importantly, Ms. 12 Teravainen has taken steps to protect Mr. Robertson’s interests. See WASH. RULES OF PROF’L 13 CONDUCT R. 1.16(b)(1) (allowing withdrawal if it “can be accomplished without material adverse 14 effect on the interests of the client”). As noted previously, discovery deadlines are approaching.
15 See Dkt. #10 (setting an August 14, 2020, deadline for discovery motions and requiring discovery 16 be completed by September 14, 2020). Not yet terminated as counsel of record, Ms. Teravainen 17 has made continuing efforts to resolve ongoing discovery disputes with Defendant. Still, delay 18 will result. As a general matter, the Court is disinclined to allow withdrawal within sixty days 19 before the close of discovery. C.f. LCR 83.2(b)(1) (noting that attorneys “will ordinarily be 20 permitted to withdraw until sixty days before the discovery cutoff date in a civil case”). However, 21 // 22
4 Ms. Teravainen provides further factual background by way of a declaration filed with 23 Plaintiff’s Reply. See Dkt. #44-1 (detailing some ongoing interactions).
24 5 In fact, Mr. Robertson appears to indicate that he plans to secure new counsel. Dkt. #47 at 2. 1 these concerns have been mitigated by the parties’ subsequent stipulation to continue the trial 2 date and unexpired pre-trial deadlines. See Dkt. #46.6 3 Accordingly, and having considered the motions, the related briefing, and the remainder 4 of the record, the Court finds good cause to continue this matter and to allow withdrawal of 5 counsel and hereby ORDERS:
6 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiffs (Dkt. #41) is 7 GRANTED and Ms. Teravainen shall be terminated as counsel of record in this case. 8 2. Plaintiffs are now proceeding pro se in this matter unless or until new counsel makes an 9 appearance on their behalf. Plaintiffs are advised to familiarize themselves with the 10 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules. The Court’s Local Rules 11 can be found online at www.wawd.uscourts.gov under the heading “Local Rules & 12 General Orders,” found on the left side of the Court’s homepage. Plaintiffs are 13 responsible for complying with applicable Court orders and deadlines in this matter. 14 3. The Clerk shall update Plaintiffs’ contact information on the docket and mail a copy of
15 this Order to: 16 Renardo and Donna Robertson 8514 66th Pl. NE 17 Marysville, WA 98270 (425) 737-5465 18 renardorobertson@yahoo.com
19 // 20 // 21
22 6 The Court notes that Mr. Robertson has objected to the stipulated motion. Dkt. #47. However, the Court is not permitted to consider his objection given that Ms. Teravainen still serves as 23 counsel of record. See Local Civil Rule 83.2(b)(4). Regardless, nothing in the objection alters the fact that withdrawal is appropriate and that a continuance will be required to allow new 24 counsel to become familiar with the case. 1 4. Unless and until new counsel makes an appearance on Plaintiffs’ behalf or provide the 2 Court updated contact information, all future filings in this case shall be served on them 3 at the above address. 4 5.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
8 RENARDO ROBERTSON, et al., CASE NO. C19-1618 RSM
9 Plaintiffs, ORDER
10 v.
WESTERN WASHINGTON, 12 Defendant. 13 14 This case is before the Court on two interconnected issues. First Plaintiffs’1 counsel, Ms. 15 Teravainen, seeks to withdraw as attorney of record for Plaintiff in this case. Dkt. #41. Plaintiff, 16 Mr. Robertson, filed several “responses” to the motion. Dkts. #42, #43, #45.2 In part to allow 17
18 1 Both Renardo Robertson and Donna Robertson, his wife, are named as plaintiffs in this action. However, Ms. Robertson appears to have been included merely to account for any possible 19 community property issues. The Court therefore uses the singular in this order.
20 2 Mr. Robertson’s filings appear largely duplicative. Mr. Robertson’s first filing was unsigned. Dkt. #42. His second filing, several days later, was a slightly altered and signed copy of his first, 21 attaching an addendum and some medical records. Dkt. #43. Mr. Robertson’s third filing appears to be a copy of his second, with non-substantive markings and without the medical 22 records included with the second. Dkt. #45. The Court cannot not discern any substantive difference between the second and third filings, though the third is more legible in several places. 23 Accordingly, the Court will focus its attention on Mr. Robertson’s second filing, the most complete. To the extent the Court considers Mr. Robertson’s third filing, it is only to aid in 24 reading the second filing. 1 Mr. Robertson time to secure new representation, the parties have also filed a stipulation seeking 2 continuances of looming discovery deadlines. Dkt. #46. Mr. Robertson similarly objects to the 3 stipulated continuance by way of a pro-se response. Dkt. #47. Having considered the issues, the 4 Court grants the pending motions as follows. 5 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.2, “no attorney shall withdraw an appearance in any case,
6 civil or criminal, except by leave of court. Leave of court shall be obtained by filing a motion or 7 a stipulation and proposed order for withdrawal.” LCR 83.2(b)(1).3 “When ruling on motions 8 to withdraw, courts consider: (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice 9 withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the 10 administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the 11 case.” Bernstein v. City of Los Angeles, No. CV1903349PAGJSX, 2020 WL 4288443, at *1 12 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2020) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “The decision to grant 13 or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel is committed to the sound discretion of the 14 trial court.” Id. (citing LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998)).
15 Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw, written by Ms. Teravainen, is short on explanations. The 16 motion provides simply that her withdrawal will comply with Washington’s Rule of Professional 17 Conduct guiding attorneys in declining or terminating representations. Dkt. #41 at 1 (citing 18 WASH. RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 1.16). The motion otherwise provides that: “Professional 19 considerations make it appropriate to seek leave to withdraw in this case.” Id. This is consistent 20 with Rule 1.16’s additional guidance. See WASH. RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 1.16. cmt. [3] 21 (indicating that courts should generally accept a “lawyer’s statement that professional 22 // 23
24 3 The local rule’s exceptions do not apply here. LCR 83.2(b)(2)–(3). 1 considerations require termination of the representation”). Ms. Teravainen indicates that Rule of 2 Professional Conduct 1.6 constrains her ability to share additional details. Id.4 3 For his part, Mr. Robertson’s responses detail recent interactions with Ms. Teravainen, 4 including “red flags” that made him “question Ms. Teravainen’s litigation experience in 5 employment law.” Dkt. #43 at 2. Mr. Robertson complains of how Mr. Teravainen has pursued
6 the case, indicates his belief that Ms. Teravainen has lied to the Court “in order to withdraw,” 7 and generally details his displeasure with the progress of this case. Id. at 5–7. Mr. Robertson 8 does not clearly indicate that he would like Ms. Teravainen’s representation to continue.5 9 The Court finds that Ms. Teravainen should be granted leave to withdraw. The relevant 10 filings make clear that ongoing disputes persist between Plaintiff and his counsel. Defendant 11 does not claim that the withdrawal will prejudice it in any way. Perhaps most importantly, Ms. 12 Teravainen has taken steps to protect Mr. Robertson’s interests. See WASH. RULES OF PROF’L 13 CONDUCT R. 1.16(b)(1) (allowing withdrawal if it “can be accomplished without material adverse 14 effect on the interests of the client”). As noted previously, discovery deadlines are approaching.
15 See Dkt. #10 (setting an August 14, 2020, deadline for discovery motions and requiring discovery 16 be completed by September 14, 2020). Not yet terminated as counsel of record, Ms. Teravainen 17 has made continuing efforts to resolve ongoing discovery disputes with Defendant. Still, delay 18 will result. As a general matter, the Court is disinclined to allow withdrawal within sixty days 19 before the close of discovery. C.f. LCR 83.2(b)(1) (noting that attorneys “will ordinarily be 20 permitted to withdraw until sixty days before the discovery cutoff date in a civil case”). However, 21 // 22
4 Ms. Teravainen provides further factual background by way of a declaration filed with 23 Plaintiff’s Reply. See Dkt. #44-1 (detailing some ongoing interactions).
24 5 In fact, Mr. Robertson appears to indicate that he plans to secure new counsel. Dkt. #47 at 2. 1 these concerns have been mitigated by the parties’ subsequent stipulation to continue the trial 2 date and unexpired pre-trial deadlines. See Dkt. #46.6 3 Accordingly, and having considered the motions, the related briefing, and the remainder 4 of the record, the Court finds good cause to continue this matter and to allow withdrawal of 5 counsel and hereby ORDERS:
6 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiffs (Dkt. #41) is 7 GRANTED and Ms. Teravainen shall be terminated as counsel of record in this case. 8 2. Plaintiffs are now proceeding pro se in this matter unless or until new counsel makes an 9 appearance on their behalf. Plaintiffs are advised to familiarize themselves with the 10 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules. The Court’s Local Rules 11 can be found online at www.wawd.uscourts.gov under the heading “Local Rules & 12 General Orders,” found on the left side of the Court’s homepage. Plaintiffs are 13 responsible for complying with applicable Court orders and deadlines in this matter. 14 3. The Clerk shall update Plaintiffs’ contact information on the docket and mail a copy of
15 this Order to: 16 Renardo and Donna Robertson 8514 66th Pl. NE 17 Marysville, WA 98270 (425) 737-5465 18 renardorobertson@yahoo.com
19 // 20 // 21
22 6 The Court notes that Mr. Robertson has objected to the stipulated motion. Dkt. #47. However, the Court is not permitted to consider his objection given that Ms. Teravainen still serves as 23 counsel of record. See Local Civil Rule 83.2(b)(4). Regardless, nothing in the objection alters the fact that withdrawal is appropriate and that a continuance will be required to allow new 24 counsel to become familiar with the case. 1 4. Unless and until new counsel makes an appearance on Plaintiffs’ behalf or provide the 2 Court updated contact information, all future filings in this case shall be served on them 3 at the above address. 4 5. The Joint Stipulated Motion to Continue Trial Date and to Amend Case Schedule (Dkt. 5 #46) is GRANTED. Trial is continued and all unexpired pre-trial deadlines are reset as
6 follows: 7 Jury Trial Date 07/12/2021 8 Activity Current Deadline New Deadline 9 Deadline for Filing Discovery Motions 08/14/2020 02/15/2021 10 Discovery Cut Off 09/14/2020 03/15/2021 11 Dispositive motions filing deadline 10/13/2020 04/13/2021 Deadline to hold mediation 11/27/2020 05/27/2021 12 Deadline for Motions in Limine noted 12/14/2020 06/14/2021 13 for 3rd Friday thereafter Agreed Pretrial Order 12/30/2020 06/30/2021 14 Pretrial conference to be scheduled by 15 the Court Trial Briefs, prop voir dire, jury 01/06/2021 07/06/2021 16 instructions, neutral statement of the case, and trial exhibits due 17 18 Dated this 12th day of August, 2020. 19 20 A 21 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 22 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23 24