United States of America v. Nancy Schaedler-Moore et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: October 14, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00978
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.: 24-CV-978-W-AHG

14 Plaintiff, ORDER: (1) GRANTING 15 v. ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL [DOC. 16 NANCY SCHAEDLER-MOORE et al., 82]; (2) GRANTING MOTION TO 17 Defendants. TERMINATE REPRESENTATION [DOC. 83]; AND (3) SUA SPONTE 18 AMENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 19 ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS [DOC. 77] 20

21 22 Before the Court are Samuel D. Brotman’s motion to withdraw as attorney of 23 record for Defendant Nancy Schaedler-Moore (Mtn. Withdraw [Doc. 82]), and Ms. 24 Schaedler-Moore’s motion to terminate Mr. Brotman’s representation and proceed pro se. 25 (Mtn. Terminate [Doc. 83].) The hearing date set for November 5, 2025, is VACATED1. 26 27 1 In light of Ms. Schaedler-Moore’s motion, the Court finds good cause to decide the 28 1 The Court decides these matters on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See 2 CivLR 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons set forth below, the motions are GRANTED. 3 Additionally, the Court sua sponte AMENDS the briefing schedule on the pending 4 motion for judgment on the pleadings (Mtn. Judg. Plead. [Doc. 77]), as set forth below. 5 I. BACKGROUND 6 On June 4, 2024, Plaintiff United States of America filed a complaint against Ms. 7 Schaedler-Moore and other defendants with alleged property interests in 1137 Columbus 8 Way, Vista, California 92081 (“the property”). (Compl. [Doc. 1].) Plaintiff alleged that 9 the property was burdened by IRS recorded notices of federal tax liens (“NFTLs”) based 10 on tax assessments made against a taxpayer who previously purchased the property. (Id. 11 at 4.) Based on the NFTLs, Plaintiff moved to foreclose on the property. (Id. at 11-12.) 12 On July 17, 2024, Ms. Schaedler-Moore answered the complaint and filed 13 counterclaims and cross-claims. (Answer [Doc. 6].) Plaintiff answered the counterclaims, 14 and moved for a judgment on the pleadings on August 16, 2024, under Federal Rule of 15 Civil Procedure 12(c). (Mtn. Judg. Plead. [Doc. 21].) Plaintiff’s motion was granted 16 [Doc. 37], and Ms. Schaedler-Moore’s counterclaims were dismissed. The following 17 year, on February 26, 2025, Ms. Schaedler-Moore’s attorneys filed a motion to withdraw 18 as counsel due to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. (Mtn. Withdraw [Doc. 19 52].) The Court granted the motion [Doc. 57]. On April 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion 20 for summary judgment against Ms. Schaedler-Moore2. (Mtn. Summ. Judg. [Doc. 64].) 21 Shortly thereafter, Ms. Schaedler-Moore’s obtained new counsel, attorney Samuel D. 22 Brotman. (Ntc. of Appear. [Doc. 69].) 23 On September 5, 2025, Defendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation (“FMC”) filed a 24 motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Ms. Schaedler-Moore. (Mtn. Judg. Plead. 25 26 27 2 On September 16, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment 28 1 [Doc. 77].) On October 2, 2025, Ms. Schaedler-Moore’s counsel, Mr. Brotman, filed a 2 response to FMC’s motion, stating that Ms. Schaedler-Moore does not oppose the 3 motion. (Mtn. Judg. Plead. Response [Doc. 80].) The response does not contain any 4 substantive information or argument. (Id.) 5 Mr. Brotman now moves to withdraw as attorney of record for Ms. Schaedler- 6 Moore. (Mtn. [Doc. 82].) Mr. Brotman explains that the motion is at the request of Ms. 7 Schaedler-Moore. (Id.) This is consistent with Ms. Schaedler-Moore’s motion to 8 terminate Mr. Brotman’s representation and proceed pro se. (Mtn. to Terminate [Doc. 9 83].) In Ms. Schaedler-Moore’s motion, she explains that Mr. Brotman’s response to 10 FMC’s motion leaves room for misinterpretation, and “[i]mmediate action is required to 11 protect her legal rights and to correct the record regarding her position in this matter.” 12 (Id. at 2.) 13 14 II. LEGAL STANDARD 15 An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court. Darby v. City 16 of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992); CivLR 83(3)(f)(3). “The grant or 17 denial of an attorney’s motion to withdraw in a civil case is a matter addressed to the 18 discretion of the trial court . . . .” Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, Inc., 694 F.2d 19 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1982). Factors considered in evaluating the motion are “(1) the 20 reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other 21 litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the 22 degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” CE Resource, Inc. v. 23 Magellan Group, LLC, No. 2:08-CV-02999MCEKJM, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D. 24 Cal. Oct. 14, 2009) (citing Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, No. 1:02-cv-06599, 25 2009 WL 89141, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan 14, 2009)). 26 Withdrawal of counsel is governed by the standards of professional conduct 27 required of members of the State Bar of California. See Nehad v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 962, 28 970 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying California Rules of Professional Conduct to attorney 1 withdrawal). Under the California professional conduct rules, an attorney may withdraw 2 if “the client by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out 3 the representation effectively.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(b). 4 5 III. ANALYSIS 6 Ms. Schaedler-Moore asserts that good cause exists to terminate Mr. Brotman’s 7 representation in order to protect her legal rights. (Mtn. to Terminate at 1-2.) It appears 8 that a fundamental disagreement arose from Mr. Brotman’s response to FMC’s motion 9 for judgment on the pleadings as to Ms. Schaedler-Moore, and she now seeks to “correct 10 the record.” (Id. at 2.) In support of her motion, Ms. Schaedler-Moore cites email 11 correspondence between herself and counsel. (Id. at 3.) For example, on October 4, 2025, 12 counsel wrote “[p]lease file the motion to terminate us as counsel and proceed. Happy to 13 help in any way we can.” (Id.) Likewise, in an email from October 5, 2025, counsel 14 stated “[i]f you want to file something that terminates us as counsel, I’m ok with that 15 too.” (Id.) 16 Based on the above, the Court finds that both Mr. Brotman and Ms. Schaedler- 17 Moore wish to terminate the attorney-client relationship. Their motions and 18 representations indicate that there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client 19 relationship. Moreover, it does not appear that Mr. Brotman’s withdrawal or termination 20 will cause any prejudice, harm, or undue delay in this matter. Accordingly, these factors 21 weigh in favor of permitting Mr. Brotman to withdraw as Ms. Schaedler-Moore’s 22 attorney of record. 23 24 IV. CONCLUSION 25 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Mr. Brotman’s motion to 26 withdraw as attorney of record for Ms. Schaedler-Moore [Doc. 82] and Ms. Schaedler- 27 Moore’s motion to terminate Mr. Brotman’s representation and proceed pro se [Doc. 83]. 28 The Clerk shall terminate Mr. Brotman as attorney of record, and update the docket to 1 ||reflect Ms. Schaedler-Moore’s pro se status. Additionally, the Court ORDERS the 2 || following: 3 (1) Mr. Brotman shall serve a copy of this order on Ms. Schaedler-Moore at his 4 earliest convenience and file the proof of service; 5 (2) No later than October 21, 2025, Ms. Schaedler-Moore shall file a motion for 6 leave to electronically file documents with her current mailing address, email 7 address, and phone number; and 8 (3) No later than October 28, 2025, Ms. Schaedler-Moore shall file an amended 9 opposition to FMC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings [Doc. 77]. An amended 10 reply, if any, shall be filed no later than November 4, 2025. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: October 14, 2025 13 \ 15 Hn. 7 omas J. Whelan 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28