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.

Sharma v. CB Merchants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 3, 2010

RADHA SHARMA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CB MERCHANTS, DEFENDANT.

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 PLAINTIFF WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Docket Nos. 22, 24)

On October 20, 2010, counsel for Plaintiff Radha Sharma ("Plaintiff") filed a Motion to Withdraw as Attorney ("Motion to Withdraw"). (Doc. 22.) Plaintiff's counsel also filed a "Request to Appear by Telephone at Motion to Withdraw as Counsel" ("Telephonic Appearance Request"). (Doc. 24.)

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 Plaintiff's counsel's Motion to Withdraw and finds that it does not comply with the requirements of Local Rule 182(d). Plaintiff's counsel did not file a declaration or affidavit in support of his motion that sets forth "the current or last known address or addresses of the client." (L.R. 182(d).) Further, while the motion itself states Plaintiff's counsel "has provided prior notice to Plaintiff of the present motion," (Doc. 22 at ¶ 4), no details regarding that notice to Plaintiff are given other than a certificate of service of the Motion to Withdraw (Doc. 23). Additionally, the details that are provided are not set forth by declaration or affidavit as required by L.R. 182(d). Without meeting the requirements of L.R. 182(d), the Court cannot consider Plaintiff's counsel's motion. Plaintiff's counsel may refile a motion to withdraw that complies with the requirements of L.R. 182(d).

As the Motion to Withdraw does not comply with the Local Rules and must be denied, Plaintiff's counsel's Telephonic Appearance Request for the currently scheduled December 1, 2010, hearing is moot.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's counsel's Motion to Withdraw as Attorney is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and

2. Plaintiff's counsel's "Request [to] Appear by Telephone at Motion to Withdraw as Counsel" is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20101103

© 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.