Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02643/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02643-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT E. LEVY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTY OF ALPINE, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-02643-KJM-CKD 

ORDER 

On July 11, 2016, approximately one month before the confirmed trial date of 

August 15, 2016, defendant County of Alpine moved for an order allowing its counsel of record, 

Gayle K. Tonon, to withdraw from representation and continuing the trial date. ECF No. 74. 

Plaintiff Robert Levy does not oppose the motion. The court held a telephonic hearing on July 

15, 2016. Douglas Watts appeared for plaintiff and Gayle Tonon appeared for defendant. David 

Prentice, County Counsel, and Carolyn McElroy, County Administrative Officer, also appeared. 

At hearing, the court DENIED defendant’s motion for the reasons discussed below. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

The local rules of this district require an attorney who would withdraw and leave 

his or her client without representation to obtain leave of the court upon a noticed motion. E.D. 

Cal. L.R. 182(d). To comply with Local Rule 182(d), the attorney must conform to the 

Case 2:13-cv-02643-RHW-DB Document 80 Filed 07/18/16 Page 1 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

requirements of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Id. California Rule of 

Professional Conduct 3-700 provides several grounds upon which an attorney may seek to 

withdraw, including where “[t]he client knowingly and freely assents to termination of the 

employment.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(5). 

The decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw is within the court’s discretion. 

McNally v. Eye Dog Found. for the Blind, Inc., No. 09-01184, 2011 WL 1087117, at *1 (E.D. 

Cal. Mar. 24, 2011) (citation omitted). District courts in this circuit have considered several 

factors when evaluating a motion to withdraw, including the reason for withdrawal, prejudice to 

the client, prejudice to the other litigants, harm to the administration of justice, and possible 

delay. See Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. 09-01643, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 

Sept. 15, 2010); CE Res., Inc. v. Magellan Group, LLC, No. 08-02999, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 

(E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2009); Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 07-594, 2008 WL 410694, at *2 

(S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008). 

II. DISCUSSION 

Defendant’s brief in support of its motion provides the relevant rules and then 

simply states: 

In this instance the Defendant, COUNTY OF ALPINE, has advised 

that they [sic] no longer wish attorney GAYLE K. TONON to 

remain as Trial counsel and will be substituting in new counsel. 

The Motion to Withdraw and vacate and/or continue the Trial date 

of August 15, 2016, is based on the request of the Defendant. 

ECF No. 74-1 at 2. Although discharge by a client is a permissible basis for seeking withdrawal 

under the California Rules of Professional Conduct, see Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(5), the 

court ultimately has discretion to grant or deny a motion to withdraw, see McNally, 2011 WL 

1087117, at *1. At hearing, the court reviewed the relevant factors with the parties and gave 

them an opportunity to respond. County Counsel noted that it has been difficult to procure new 

trial counsel willing to represent the County on the current schedule, but effectively conceded that 

the County could be ready to go to trial on the confirmed trial date of August 15, 2016 if 

necessary. The court finds the relevant factors weigh against granting the County’s motion, 

because the requested withdrawal and continuance would cause delay, would harm the 

Case 2:13-cv-02643-RHW-DB Document 80 Filed 07/18/16 Page 2 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3

administration of justice, and may prejudice plaintiff, while a denial of the request would not 

prejudice the County. The representation that defendant “wish[es]” to substitute in new counsel 

for trial is not a sufficient showing that withdrawal and a continuance are warranted at this stage. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES defendant’s motion without 

prejudice to the County submitting a proposed attorney substitution if new counsel will be 

prepared to begin trial on the confirmed trial date of August 15, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 15, 2016. 

Case 2:13-cv-02643-RHW-DB Document 80 Filed 07/18/16 Page 3 of 3