Stiles v. Walmart, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHARIDAN STILES, et al., No. 2:14-cv-02234-DAD-DMC 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD 14 WALMART, INC., et al., FOR PLAINTIFFS 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 625) 16 17 18 The matter came before the court on July 18, 2023 for a hearing on the motion to 19 withdraw as counsel of record for plaintiffs filed on June 9, 2023. (Doc. No. 625.) Attorneys 20 Joseph M. Alioto and Josephine Alioto appeared by video on behalf of plaintiffs, and plaintiff 21 Sharidan Stiles appeared by video as well. Attorneys Roy Anderson and Eric S. Engel appeared 22 by video on behalf of defendant American International Industries, Inc. (“American”), and 23 attorney Jeremy Ostrander appeared by video on behalf of defendant Walmart, Inc. (“Walmart”). 24 For the reasons explained below, the motion to withdraw as counsel of record for plaintiffs will 25 be granted. 26 In this district, an attorney’s withdrawal is governed by Local Rule 182 and the Rules of 27 Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California (“Rules of Professional Conduct”). In this 28 regard, Local Rule 182(d) provides: 1 Unless otherwise provided herein, an attorney who has appeared may not withdraw leaving the client in propria persona without 2 leave of court upon noticed motion and notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared. The attorney shall provide an 3 affidavit stating the current or last known address or addresses of the client and the efforts made to notify the client of the motion to 4 withdraw. Withdrawal as attorney is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, and the 5 attorney shall conform to the requirements of those Rules. 6 L.R. 182(d). Rule 1.16 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct provides that an attorney 7 shall withdraw from the representation of a client if the client discharges the lawyer. Cal. R. Prof. 8 Conduct 1.16(a)(4). Rule 1.16 also provides several grounds upon which an attorney may seek to 9 withdraw, including when: (i) the client’s conduct “renders it unreasonably difficult for the 10 lawyer to carry out the representation effectively”; or (ii) “the client knowingly and freely assents 11 to termination of the representation.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(b)(4), (6) (emphasis added). 12 However, representation shall not be terminated until the attorney “has taken reasonable steps to 13 avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, such as giving the client 14 sufficient notice to permit the client to retain other counsel.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(d). 15 The decision to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 1.16(b) is 16 ultimately committed to the discretion of the trial court. “In ruling on a motion to withdraw as 17 counsel, courts consider: (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal 18 may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; 19 and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Beard v. 20 Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 3:07-cv-00594-WQH-NLS, 2008 WL 410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 21 13, 2008) (citing Nat’l Career Coll., Inc. v. Spellings, No. 1:07-cv-00075-HG-LK, 2007 WL 22 2048776, at *2 (D. Haw. July 11, 2007)); see also CE Res., Inc. v. Magellan Grp., LLC, No. 2:08- 23 cv-02999-MCE-KJM, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2009) (noting that 24 “[u]ltimately, the court’s ruling must involve a balancing of the equities”). 25 Relevant here, with regard to plaintiff Stiles 4 U, Inc., Local Rule 183 further provides 26 that “[a] corporation or other entity may appear only by an attorney.” L.R. 183(a). “While 27 individuals may appear in propria persona, corporations and other entities may appear only 28 through an attorney; an unrepresented entity cannot file any pleadings, make or oppose any 1 motions, or present any evidence to contest liability. Caveman Foods, LLC v. Payne’s Caveman 2 Foods, LLC, No. 2:12-cv-01112-WBS-CKD, 2015 WL 6736801, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2015) 3 (citing Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993)). 4 In the pending motion, plaintiffs’ counsel states that plaintiff “Stiles made repeated 5 demands for plaintiffs’ counsel to withdraw from representation.” (Doc. No. 625 at 3.) In 6 addition, plaintiffs’ counsel states that good cause exists to permit them to withdraw from 7 representing plaintiffs because plaintiff Stiles’ conduct has made continuing representation 8 difficult, causing their attorney-client relationship to break down. (Id. at 4.) For example, 9 plaintiff Stiles acted against counsel’s recommendation by communicating directly with defense 10 counsel and attempting to communicate directly with the court through improper ex parte 11 communications sent by email to the courtroom deputy—communications which the court 12 disregarded. (Id.) Moreover, as counsel explains in the pending motion, “contrary to counsel’s 13 advice, Stiles instructed Plaintiffs’ Counsel not to appeal the Court’s judgment, causing counsel 14 and Plaintiffs to reach an impasse and maintain differing opinions and positions regarding the 15 handling of Plaintiffs’ case to the point that they have irreconcilable differences in prosecuting 16 this case further.” (Id.) Further, plaintiffs’ counsel asserts that their withdrawal will not 17 prejudice either party nor cause undue delay in this case because judgment was already entered 18 against plaintiffs on all of plaintiffs’ claims. (Id. at 4–5.) Notably, the only remaining issue in 19 this case is defendant American’s pending motion for an award of attorneys’ fees.1 Attorney 20 Joseph Alioto submitted a declaration in support of the pending motion in which he states that he 21 provided written and verbal notice to plaintiffs regarding the pending motion to withdraw, and he 22 includes the contact information for plaintiff Sharidan Stiles: 2570 Harlan Drive, Redding, 23 California, 96003; Sharidan@stiles4u.com, stilesrazor@icloud.com. (Doc. No. 625-1 at 3.) 24 At the July 18, 2023 hearing on the pending motion to withdraw, plaintiffs’ counsel 25 reiterated that plaintiff Stiles had discharged them from representing her and her company, Stiles 26

27 1 At the status conference held on May 23, 2023 and at the July 18, 2023 hearing, defendants American and Walmart represented to the court that they intend to voluntarily dismiss their 28 counterclaims in this action. (See Doc. Nos. 624, 628.) 1 4 U, Inc., in this action and in the related actions pending before the undersigned.2 However, at 2 that hearing, plaintiff Stiles stated that she had not discharged her counsel and that she wished for 3 them to continue representing her in this action and the related actions because she has no ability 4 to represent herself or to obtain new counsel. Attorneys Joseph Alioto and Josephine Alioto 5 expressed surprise at plaintiff Stiles’ stated position, emphasizing that there are irreconcilable 6 differences between them on the one hand, and plaintiffs on the other, such that they could not 7 continue to represent plaintiffs under the circumstances. In particular, plaintiffs’ counsel 8 highlighted plaintiffs’ lack of cooperation and her insistence that they not file a notice of appeal 9 of this court’s summary judgment order—despite counsel’s advice and guidance regarding the 10 importance of filing such an appeal and the consequences that would flow from failing to timely 11 do so. Nevertheless, in light of plaintiff Stiles’ stated position at the hearing, and due to an 12 apparent belief on attorney Joseph Alioto’s part that defendants would be liable for plaintiffs’ 13 attorneys’ fees if defendants followed through with their intention to dismiss their 14 counterclaims—a belief that this court does not share—attorney Joseph Alioto suggested that 15 counsel for all parties might be able to reach a resolution of the outstanding issues in this case 16 without necessitating further involvement by the court. Though skeptical, the court nonetheless 17 stated that it would not rule on the pending motion to withdraw for ten days, i.e., no sooner than 18 July 28, 2023. The court invited the parties to file any further submissions for the court’s 19 consideration by that date, including specifically directing defendant American to file a 20 supplemental brief in support of its pending motion for attorneys’ fees. (Doc. No. 628.) Other 21 than defendant American’s supplement brief in support of its motion for attorneys’ fees (Doc. No. 22 629), no party has filed anything else for the court’s consideration. Notably, plaintiffs have not 23 filed any further briefing or requests, nor a substitution of counsel to replace attorneys Joseph 24 Alioto and Josephine Alioto with new counsel.

25 2 Plaintiffs’ counsel filed motions to withdraw as counsel of record for plaintiff Stiles in each of the related cases: American Int’l Industries v. Stiles, 2:19-cv-01218-DAD-DMC (Doc. No. 57); 26 Stiles v. Target Corporation, 2:19-cv-02144-DAD-DMC (Doc. No. 50); Stiles v. CVS Pharmacy 27 Inc., 2:19-cv-02145-DAD-DMC (Doc. No. 44); Stiles v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 2:19-cv-02146- DAD-DMC (Doc. No. 58). The court will resolve those motions by issuing separate orders in 28 each of those cases. 1 Having considered plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion, attorney Joseph Alioto’s declaration, and 2 plaintiff Stiles’ position as stated at the July 18, 2023 hearing, the court finds that counsel has 3 described sufficient grounds for withdrawal consistent with the California Rules of Professional 4 Conduct and has complied with the Local Rules’ procedural requirements for withdrawal. While 5 the court is not unsympathetic to the challenges that plaintiffs have faced in obtaining new 6 counsel to represent them in this action, plaintiffs have known for several months that their 7 counsel would be seeking to withdraw as counsel in this action. Indeed, according to counsel’s 8 declaration, plaintiff Stiles had made repeated demands that they withdraw from representing her 9 in this case and in the related cases pending in this court. Given the procedural posture of this 10 case, the court is not willing to let this case linger on any further. Accordingly, the court will 11 grant the pending motion to withdraw as plaintiffs’ counsel (Doc. No. 617) and will set a deadline 12 for plaintiff Stiles3 to file an opposition to defendant American’s pending motion for attorneys’ 13 fees. 14 For the reasons explained above, 15 1. Plaintiffs’ counsel Joseph M. Alioto’s and Josephine Alioto’s motion to withdraw 16 as counsel of record for plaintiffs (Doc. No. 625) is granted; 17 2. Attorneys Joseph M. Alioto and Josephine Alioto shall comply with all obligations 18 under Rule 1.16(e) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct regarding 19 release of a client’s papers and property and return of any unearned fees; 20 3. Plaintiff Sharidan Stiles is substituted in pro se and is directed to comply with the 21 court’s orders and the Local Rules of this district; 22 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate attorney Joseph M. Alioto and 23 Josephine Alioto as the counsel of record for plaintiffs; 24 /////

25 3 As noted above, plaintiff Stiles 4 U, Inc. cannot proceed in this action without counsel. Given that the court has already entered judgment in favor of defendants on all of plaintiffs’ claims 26 (Doc. Nos. 588, 608, 610), and plaintiffs have elected not to pursue an appeal of that decision, 27 coupled with the fact that defendants have expressed their intent to dismiss their counterclaims against plaintiffs, the procedural posture of this case suggests that no further action needs to be 28 taken with regard to plaintiff Stiles 4 U, Inc. at this time. 1 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter the following contact information as the 2 address of record for plaintiff Sharidan Stiles: 3 Sharidan Stiles 4 2570 Harlan Drive Redding, California, 96003 5 Sharidan @ stiles4u.com, stilesrazor@icloud.com 6 6. Within two (2) days from the date of entry of this order, defendant American shall 7 serve a copy of its pending motion for attorneys’ fees (Doc. No. 617) and 8 supplemental statement (Doc. No. 629) on plaintiff Stiles directly by mail and by 9 e-mail; 10 7. Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of entry of this order, plaintiff Stiles 11 shall file either an opposition to defendant American’s motion for an award of 12 attorneys’ fees, or a statement of non-opposition to that motion; 13 8. Plaintiff Stiles is warned that her failure to timely file an opposition will be 14 construed by the court as a non-opposition to defendant American’s motion for an 15 award of attorneys’ fees and costs; 16 9. If plaintiff Stiles files an opposition to defendant American’s motion for an award 17 of attorneys’ fees, defendant American’s reply, if any, shall be filed no later than 18 ten (10) days after service of the opposition; and 19 10. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order on plaintiff Stiles by mail. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. *! | Dated: _ August 2, 2023 Dal A. 2, pel 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28