Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02196/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02196-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 130
Nature of Suit: Miller Act
Cause of Action: 40:270 Miller Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

for the use and benefit of

BERRY’S HEATING AND AIR

CONDITIONING, INC., a

California corporation,

NO. CIV. 05-2196 LKK/JFM

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE 

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

The matter is before the court on Atkinson, Adelson, Loya,

Ruud & Romo’s (“Atkinson” or “counsel”) motion to withdraw as

counsel of record for plaintiff, United States for use of Berry’s

Hearing and Air Conditioning, Inc. (“Berry’s”).

Local Rule 83-182(d) states that “an attorney who has appeared

may not withdraw leaving the client in propria persona without

leave of Court upon noticed motion and written notice to the client

Case 2:05-cv-02196-LKK -JFM Document 30 Filed 06/01/06 Page 1 of 4
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

2

and all other parties who have appeared . . . . Withdrawal is

governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of

California, and the attorney shall conform to the requirements of

those Rules. The authority and duty of the attorney of record

shall continue until relieved by order of the Court issued

hereunder. Leave to withdraw may be granted subject to such

appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit.”

Atkinson was originally contacted by Berry’s lead counsel,

Kevin Cox, who is located in New York, to serve as local counsel

for Berry’s in this litigation. Since that contact, however,

Berry’s has refused to sign a representation agreement and has

refused to communicate or correspond with the Atkinson firm

regarding its representation of Berry’s, and has insisted that

correspondences be sent to Mr. Cox, who has “given conflicting

instructions.” Mot. to Withdraw at 4-5. Atkinson states that

Berry’s has refused to allow it to make court appearances and has

also not allowed Atkinson to perform necessary work. Id. Berry’s

has also failed to pay pending attorney’s fees and costs. Id. In

sum, Berry’s failures have caused a “breakdown in the attorneyclient relationship and have rendered it unfeasible for the

Atkinson firm to carry out its representation of Berry’s

effectively.” Id. at 5. 

Rule 3-700(c) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct

governs the permissive withdrawal of counsel. That rule provides

support for counsel’s motion to withdraw, as demonstrated by the

following sections: 

Case 2:05-cv-02196-LKK -JFM Document 30 Filed 06/01/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

A member of the bar may request permission to withdraw

where the client “by other conduct renders it

unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the

employment effectively,” 3-700(C)(1)(d), “ the inability

to work with co-counsel indicates that the best

interests of the client likely will be served by

withdrawal,” 3-700(C)(3).

Further, the California State Bar Rules of Professional

Conduct allow an attorney to permissively withdraw for non-payment

of fees. See California State Bar Professional Conduct Rule

3-700(C)(f) and In re Cedic Development Co., 219 F.3d 1115, 1116

(9th Cir. 2000).

Additionally, Atkinson explains that its client would not be

prejudiced because Berry’s has been provided with at least three(3)

months’ notice that it intends to withdraw from its representation

and notes that trial is thirteen months away. Cable Dec. at ¶ 10.

Finally, Atkinson states that its clients have been served with a

copy of this motion and all attachments thereto.

Based on the record before the court, counsel’s motion to

withdraw is GRANTED. The court hereby ORDERS as follows:

1. Counsel is directed to serve this order onto plaintiff.

2. Counsel is directed to release all client papers and

property to plaintiff within fifteen (15) days, including

correspondence, pleadings, deposition transcripts, exhibits,

physical evidence, expert’s reports, and other items reasonably

necessary to the client’s representation, whether the client has

paid for them or not. 

3. A Status conference is SET for July 24, 2006 at 2:00 p.m.

////

Case 2:05-cv-02196-LKK -JFM Document 30 Filed 06/01/06 Page 3 of 4
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

1

 It appears to the court that plaintiff has still retained

Kevin Cox as its counsel. Mr. Cox has been admitted on a pro hac

vice basis, but in order for plaintiff to proceed in this court,

Mr. Cox must associate with local counsel. Further, the court

notes that plaintiff cannot proceed in pro per because it is a

corporation. Because plaintiff may not proceed in pro per, a

failure to obtain counsel will result in dismissal of the

complaint.

4

Plaintiff is directed to obtain a new attorney before the scheduled

Status Conference and to notify the court of the new attorney prior

to the conference.1

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 31, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02196-LKK -JFM Document 30 Filed 06/01/06 Page 4 of 4