Wagner v. King County

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 28, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00508
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 NANCY WAGNER, CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00508-TL 11 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING MOTION 12 v. TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL 13 KING COUNTY ET AL, 14 Defendants. 15

16 17 This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw as 18 counsel. Dkt. No. 18. The time for Plaintiff or Defendants’ response to the motion has passed, 19 and no response has been filed with the Court. Having considered the relevant record and having 20 found this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument, Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b), the Court 21 hereby GRANTS the motion for the reasons explained below. 22 23 24 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 On January 6, 2022, counsel for Plaintiff in the present action, Mr. Kevin P. Smith, 3 moved to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff (the “Motion to Withdraw”). Dkt. No. 18; 4 see also Dkt. No. 17 (supporting declaration). Mr. Smith is the sole attorney at his law firm,

5 Defiance Law PLLC. Dkt. No. 17, ¶ 4. Mr. Smith’s request to withdraw is based on two reasons: 6 (1) He has obtained new employment with the Washington State Employment Security 7 Department, which renders him (and his law firm) unable to continue representing clients in 8 litigation; and (2) “irreconcilable differences and a breakdown in communication that make 9 continued representation of Plaintiff impossible,” about which he provides no details.1 Id. ¶¶ 3-4. 10 Mr. Smith notified Plaintiff of his intent to withdraw as counsel and suggested that she 11 seek new counsel on December 21, 2021. Id. ¶ 5. Mr. Smith served a copy of the Motion to 12 Withdraw as well as the supporting declaration on his client’s physical address via overnight 13 mail and also provided a copy via electronic mail. Dkt. No. 18, at 4 (certificate of service); Dkt. 14 No. 17, at 4 (same). He has not heard from Plaintiff on whether she has retained new counsel.

15 Dkt. No 17, ¶ 5. 16 The Parties’ deadline for the completion of discovery is April 29, 2022. Dkt. No. 13 (trial 17 scheduling order). Dispositive motions are due May 31, 2022, and trial is scheduled for August 18 29, 2022. Id. 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 “No attorney shall withdraw an appearance in any case, civil or criminal, except by leave 21 of court,” except in certain circumstances that do not apply here. LCR 83.2(b)(1). In deciding on 22

23 1 Mr. Smith cites the attorney-client privilege and potential prejudice to Plaintiff’s claims for his failure to provide such details, and he represents that he is willing to provide further details “in chambers” if needed. Dkt. No. 18, at 1 24 n.1. The Court’s conclusions herein do not rely on Mr. Smith’s cited reason of “irreconcilable differences.” 1 a motion to withdraw as counsel, the court “retains wide discretion in a civil case to grant or 2 deny a motion to withdraw.” Putz v. Golden, No. C10-0741JLR, 2012 WL 13019202, at *3 3 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 3, 2012); see also LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998) 4 (reviewing district court’s denial of motion to withdraw for abuse of discretion). A motion’s

5 compliance with the technical requirements of LCR 83.2 does not guarantee withdrawal. Putz, 6 2012 WL 13019202, at *3. 7 As a general matter, in deciding a motion to withdraw as counsel, the court examines 8 such relevant factors as: “(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal 9 may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of 10 justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Id.; see 11 also Russell v. Samec, No. 2:20-cv-00263-RSM-JRC, 2021 WL 3130053, at *1 (W.D. Wash. 12 July 23, 2021). In this District, “[an] attorney will ordinarily be permitted to withdraw until sixty 13 days before the discovery [cutoff] date in a civil case.” LCR 83.2(b)(1); see also Ville v. First 14 Choice in Home Care, No. C17-0548JLR, 2018 WL 1040190, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 21,

15 2018). The consent of the client is not dispositive. Putz, 2012 WL 13019202, at *3. 16 As a threshold matter, the Motion to Withdraw appears to satisfy the technical 17 requirements set forth in Local Civil Rule 83.2, such as the inclusion of Plaintiff’s address and 18 telephone number and a certification that the motion was served on the client and opposing 19 counsel. See LCR 83.2(b)(1); Dkt. Nos. 17–18. Neither Ms. Wagner, the client, nor opposing 20 counsel filed a response to the motion. 21 While the Motion to Withdraw and its accompanying declaration are fairly meager in 22 detail, the Court finds that there is sufficient information and cause to grant the Motion. 23 Plaintiff’s counsel cannot continue to represent any client due to Mr. Smith’s change in

24 1 employment, resulting in his exit from private practice, and gave notice of his intent to seek to 2 withdraw as counsel to his client now over a month ago. Dkt. No. 17, ¶¶ 4–5. This weighs 3 heavily in favor of withdrawal. See Abokasem v. Royal Indian Raj Int’l Corp., No. C-10-01781 4 MMC, slip op. at 3 & n.4 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2011) (conditionally granting motion to withdraw

5 of two attorneys who were set to retire or prevented from continuing the representation due to 6 new employment, respectively). Mr. Smith has served Defendants with notice of his intent to 7 withdraw from the case. See Dkt. No. 18, at 4 (certificate of service). There remain over three 8 months before the April 29, 2022 deadline for the completion of discovery in the present case, 9 which provides ample time for Plaintiff to seek new counsel and both parties to work toward the 10 timely completion of discovery.2 Therefore, there is little to no risk of prejudice to Defendants, 11 harm to the administration of justice, or delay in the resolution of this case in granting the 12 Motion to Withdraw, and no party has claimed otherwise. See Russell, 2021 WL 3130053, at *1. 13 III. CONCLUSION 14 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows:

15 1. Mr. Smith’s motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Ms. Wagner (Dkt. No. 16 18) is GRANTED, on the condition that Mr. Smith serve a copy of this Order upon 17 Plaintiff by certified mail (return receipt required) and email, advising her of the 18 effect of this Order, and file proof of such service within ten (10) days of this 19 Order. 20 21 22

23 2 If, however, Parties find that more time is needed, Parties are directed to review the Court’s Standing Order for All Civil Cases on this Court’s policy and procedures on extending deadlines. See 24 https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/sites/wawd/files/LinStandingOrderreCivilCases.pdf. 1 2. Within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, Plaintiff shall file a document 2 stating whether she intends to employ new counsel or proceed pro se 3 (representing herself). 4 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record and to

5 mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at: 3033 S 76th St., Tacoma, WA 98409. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated this 28th day of January, 2022. 8 A 9 Tana Lin United States District Judge 10

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24