Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McNally v. Eye Dog Foundation for the Blind

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 8, 2010

MONTRY MCNALLY; RUBY BELL; AND KENNETH BALES, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
EYE DOG FOUNDATION FOR THE BLIND, INC., EYE DOG FOUNDATION PROFIT SHARING PLAN, GWEN BROWN, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR DEFENDANTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Docket Nos. 48, 49)

On September 3, 2010, counsel for Defendants Gwen Brown and Eye Dog Foundation for the Blind, Inc. ("Defendants") filed a Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record for Defendants ("Motion to Withdraw"). (Doc. 48.) Defendants' counsel also filed an "Ex Parte Application for an Order to Shorten Time on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record for Defendants" ("Application to Shorten Time"). (Doc. 49.)

The Local Rules ("L.R.") for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California provide specific requirements for the withdrawal of counsel where, as here, the attorney will leave the client in propria persona. (L.R. 182(d).) Local Rule 182(d) provides, in relevant part, as follows:

Unless otherwise provided herein, an attorney who has appeared may not withdraw leaving the client in propria persona without leave of court upon noticed motion and notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared. The attorney shall provide an 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 withdraw.

The Court has reviewed Defendants' counsel's Motion to Withdraw and finds that it does not comport with the requirements of Local Rule 182(d). The declaration filed by Defendants' counsel in support of his motion does not provide "the current or last known address or addresses of the client." (L.R. 182(d).) Further, the declaration does not set forth counsel's efforts to notify Defendants of the Motion to Withdraw or the Application to Shorten Time. Finally, neither the Motion to Withdraw nor the Application to Shorten Time is accompanied by proofs of service on Defendants indicating that they were provided notice of counsel's attempt to withdraw as their attorney of record. Without meeting the requirements of L.R. 182(d), the Court cannot consider counsel's motion. Moreover, as the Motion to Withdraw does not comply with the Local Rules and must be denied, the Application to Shorten Time is moot.

In the event that Defendants' counsel wishes to refile a motion to withdraw that complies with L.R. 182(d), the Court notes that counsel may also file a motion before the District Judge to continue the hearing date on the Motion for Summary Judgment that is currently set for September 27, 2010. (See L.R. 230(f).)

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' counsel's Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record for Defendants is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and

2. Defendants' counsel's Application for an Order Shortening Time on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record for Defendants is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100908

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.