United States District Court, E.D. California
CRAIG E. TANNER and GINA L. TANNER, Plaintiffs,
J.P. MORGAN CHASE NATIONAL CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING COUNSELS’ MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
ATTORNEY OF RECORD
Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
1, 2016, attorney Kenley Dygert filed a motion to withdraw as
attorney of record for Plaintiffs Craig E. Tanner and Gina L.
Tanner. (Doc. 7.) Mr. Dygert asserts JT Legal Group is unable
to continue representing f Plaintiffs because the
attorney/client relationship has been compromised. (Doc. 7-1
at 2.) Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants submitted opposition
to this motion and the plaintiffs did not appear at the
hearing. For the following reasons, Mr. Dygert’s motion
to withdraw is GRANTED.
commenced this suit by filing their complaint in state court
on February 9, 2016, claiming Defendants and Does 1-20
violated Cal. Civil Code §2924.11(c), were in breach of
contract, acted negligently, and participated in unfair
business practices. (See generally Doc. 1-1.)
Plaintiffs also assert a promissory estoppel claim against
Defendants and Does 1-20. (See generally Id.)
Further, Plaintiffs request the court grant injunctive relief
pursuant to Cal. Civil Code §2924.12. (See
generally Id.) Subsequently, Defendants removed to
this Court on May 20, 2016. (See Doc. 1.) Then on
June 1, 2016, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed the motion now
pending before the Court, seeking to withdraw as counsel.
(Doc. 7.) To date, neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants have
opposed the motion to withdraw.
Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California
and the Local Rules of the United States District Court, E.D.
California govern the withdrawal of counsel. See LR
182(d). Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, withdrawal
of representation is allowed if a client’s conduct
“renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to
carry out the employment effectively.” Cal. R.P.C.
3-700(C)(1)(d). For withdrawal under Local Rule 182(d), an
attorney who has appeared in the action “may not
withdraw leaving the client in propria persona” without
the Court’s permission. Further, the attorney must also
ensure the client and all other parties that have appeared
are receive notice of the motion to withdraw through proper
service. CRC 3.1362(d); see also LR 182(d). The
attorney then must “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
the Court. LR 182(d). Similarly, California’s rules
require the attorney also give “due notice to the
client, allowing time for employment of other counsel.”
Cal. R.P.C. 3-700(A)(2).
Court’s decision to grant a motion to withdraw is
discretionary. See LR 182(d). To determine whether
withdrawal is appropriate, the Court may consider: (1) the
reasons for withdrawal, (2) possible prejudice to other
litigants, (3) resulting harm to the administration of
justice, and (4) any possible delay caused by the withdrawal.
Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, 2009 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 4238, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2009).
Discussion and Analysis
Dygert states he is unable to continue effective
representation because the attorney/client relationship has
been compromised. (Doc. 7-1 at 2.) According to counsel,
Plaintiffs failed to maintain their duties when they breached
the attorney client retainer agreement. (Id.) The
declaration and the proof of service of the motion to
withdraw indicates Plaintiffs and all other parties were
served with the proper documents, as required under the
California Rules. (Doc. 9-1 at 2; see also Doc. 7-1
at 2.) To date, neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants oppose the
motion, suggesting that the possible prejudice to other
litigants is either non-existent or likely to be small.
Additionally, this case has not yet been scheduled and no
trial has been set, so the withdrawal is unlikely to cause
delay. Finally, the Court does not find there would be any
harm to the administration of justice.
Conclusion and Order
Dygert followed the procedural and substantive requirements
set forth in the California Rules of Professional Conduct and
the Local Rules when submitting the motion to withdraw as
Plaintiffs’ attorney, and stated adequate reasons for
the withdrawal. Further, granting the motion is unlikely to
result in prejudice to other litigants or any delays. Thus,
the Court is exercising its discretion to grant the motion to
withdraw. See LR 182.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
motion to withdraw (Doc. 13) is GRANTED;
Clerk’s Office SHALL TERMINATE Kenley Dygert, Nicholas
Van Parys, Jack Ter-Saakyan, and Armine Sing as “Lead
Attorneys to be Noticed” for Plaintiffs in the Court
docket, and update the docket to reflect ...