Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01184/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01184-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREG OCCHIONERO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

CITY OF FRESNO, )

)

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:05-cv-1184-AWI-SMS

ORDER VACATING THE COURT’S ORDER

GRANTING THE MOTION OF COUNSEL TO

WITHDRAW (DOC. 41)

ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION OF

COUNSEL TO WITHDRAW (DOC. 33)

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO

UPDATE THE DOCKET 

INFORMATIONAL ORDER TO PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff is proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(1) and 72-303.

I. Background

Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on September 16, 2005. On

October 6, 2005, Plaintiff counsel filed a motion to withdraw as

attorney of record that was initially noticed for November 3,

2006, and was eventually reset for November 17, 2006. When the

period for filing opposition defined by Local Rule 78-230(c)

passed, the docket did not reflect that either Plaintiff or

Case 1:05-cv-01184-LJO -SMS Document 42 Filed 11/14/06 Page 1 of 8
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

Defendant had filed any opposition or other response to the

motion. On November 6, 2006, the Court initially vacated the

hearing on the motion due to clerical error but thereafter on

November 6, 2006, vacated that order and further determined that

the motion was appropriately heard on the papers alone, and

deemed the matter submitted to the Court for decision. On the

same date, Plaintiff’s opposition, which bears a mechanical file

stamp of November 3, 2006, was docketed. On November 7, the

Court’s order signed on November 6, 2006, granting the motion to

withdraw, was docketed.

It is not clear whether or not the opposition of Plaintiff

was timely filed, but the Court will assume for the purposes of

the motion to withdraw that it was timely filed on November 3,

2006, as the mechanical file stamp indicates.

There is no proof of service of the opposition to the

motion; for that reason, the Court could strike the opposition

and not consider it at all. However, in an abundance of caution

for the interests of the Plaintiff, the undersigned Magistrate

Judge has reviewed the opposition and will summarize it in this

order so that no parties to this action remain uninformed of the

Plaintiff’s position. The Court notes, however, that any further

papers filed without an appropriate proof of service will be

stricken. 

Plaintiff does not request a hearing. The Court concludes

that its earlier decision to consider the motion on the papers

pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h), was appropriate. 

The Court notes that the declaration of Attorney Doerksen

establishes that on October 6, 2006, Plaintiff Greg Occhionero

Case 1:05-cv-01184-LJO -SMS Document 42 Filed 11/14/06 Page 2 of 8
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

was notified in writing and by service by mail of counsel’s

decision to withdraw and of the bringing of this motion.

Plaintiff’s name, address, and telephone number are stated in the

moving papers.

II. Motion to Withdraw

The grounds of the motion are a conflict concerning

fundamental differences regarding how the action is to be

handled, and a personality clash in the attorney-client

relationship. Doerksen declares that a breakdown has occurred; he

has discussed his desire to withdraw with Plaintiff, and he

understands that Plaintiff will not oppose the motion. 

Local Rule 83-182(d) provides that 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. Further, it

requires that the attorney 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.

Here, Plaintiff’s address is stated in the moving papers. Local

Rule 83-182 further states that withdrawal of the attorney is

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

California, and that the attorney shall conform to the

requirements of those Rules. 

Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d) permits

withdrawal if the client by his or her conduct renders it

unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment

effectively; Rule 3-700(C)(6) permits withdrawal if the member

believes in good faith in a proceeding pending before a tribunal

Case 1:05-cv-01184-LJO -SMS Document 42 Filed 11/14/06 Page 3 of 8
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

4

that the tribunal will find he existence of good cause for

withdrawal. Rule 3-700(A) provides in substance that a member

must obtain permission to withdraw if rules of a tribunal require

it.

Here, the declaration of counsel establishes that for about

two months, issues constituting fundamental differences regarding

how the action is to be handled have arisen; further, there is a

personality clash. The matter has been discussed by counsel and

Plaintiff; counsel understood that Plaintiff did not desire the

withdrawal but would not oppose it; Plaintiff, on the other hand,

apparently determined to oppose the motion.

Plaintiff makes argument concerning the motion, but he has

not submitted any evidentiary material in support of his

opposition. Plaintiff appears to contend that there is a

disagreement as to strategy and approach to the litigation; he

and counsel are still communicating, so there is no total

breakdown; Plaintiff desires aggressive pursuit of litigation

until most of the discovery and analysis of the case in light of

that discovery is completed; counsel should not be allowed to

abandon the case simply because a client refuses to give up

unspecified clear, substantive rights. 

The Court concludes that it is clear that a breakdown in

communication has occurred and that it affects even the simplest

of matters, such as Plaintiff’s position on the filing of

opposition. Further, it appears that counsel has concluded that

the conflict or differences concerning the subject of the

representation are serious, fundamental, and affect the substance

of the action. Although counsel declares that he is willing

Case 1:05-cv-01184-LJO -SMS Document 42 Filed 11/14/06 Page 4 of 8
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

5

further to explain the fundamental differences in confidence, he

does not wish to do so in a public document. The Court

appreciates counsel’s sense of confidentiality and discretion.

However, given counsel’s characterization, as well as Plaintiff’s

own characterization of the disputes as directly affecting what

Plaintiff characterizes as his clear, substantive rights, the

Court concludes that the differences are fundamental, and further

considering the breakdown in communication between Plaintiff and

his counsel, the Court concludes that grounds for withdrawal have

been established. 

Thus, the motion will be granted.

Plaintiff requests that counsel be required to obtain

Plaintiff’s consent or, in the absence thereof, compensate

Plaintiff for any fees and costs associated with getting new

counsel familiar with the case, which Plaintiff estimates would

take 160 or more hours.

With respect to Plaintiff’s request that present counsel be

required to pay the fees of incoming counsel, Plaintiff cites to

no agreement or other factual basis that would make such an award

appropriate. Local Rule 83-182(d) provides, “Leave to withdraw

may be granted subject to such appropriate conditions as the

Court deems fit.” Counsel affirmatively states in his declaration

that the disputes between counsel and Plaintiff did not concern

payment for counsel’s time. It does not appear that there are any

unusual circumstances or that there is any basis for requiring

Plaintiff’s counsel to pay Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s new counsel

as a condition of withdrawal.

/// 

Case 1:05-cv-01184-LJO -SMS Document 42 Filed 11/14/06 Page 5 of 8
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

6

III. Case Management

A. Scheduling

Plaintiff states that after new counsel is found, new

counsel will then have to take fifteen or twenty depositions,

hire experts, and deal with dispositive motions; Plaintiff states

it will cost $30,000.00. Further, Plaintiff seeks ten weeks in

which to secure legal representation and an additional twelve to

fifteen weeks to bring new counsel up to speed. Thus, Plaintiff

requests that the Court vacate the current scheduling order,

vacate the trial date, and set a new case management conference

for early March 2007. Plaintiff states that this amount of time

will permit him to find new counsel and will allow new counsel to

prepare a viable and reasonable case schedule. 

Plaintiff also asks for a seventy-five day stay of all

currently set discovery activities. 

Plaintiff’s case has been pending for slightly over a year.

The pleadings were not quiet until March 2006, and initial

exchange of information had not occurred in April 2006. (See,

Joint Scheduling Report of April 14, 2006, Ex. A, p. 1.) No trial

date is presently scheduled, and the Court has set a new

scheduling conference for January 10, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. in

Courtroom 7 before the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States

Magistrate Judge. The parties have been directed to file a new

joint scheduling conference report one week prior to the

scheduling conference.

The Court concludes that the presently set date for a

scheduling conference of January 10, 2007, should not be

disturbed; Plaintiff will have over sixty days within which to

Case 1:05-cv-01184-LJO -SMS Document 42 Filed 11/14/06 Page 6 of 8
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

7

obtain counsel of record and for counsel to participate in the

preparation of a joint scheduling report; if Plaintiff has not

obtained counsel by that time, Plaintiff is free to seek a

continuance of the scheduling conference by noticed motion for

good cause shown.

Further, there is no basis at this time for a stay of

discovery because it does not appear that any discovery is

occurring at this time.

B. Updating the Docket

Because the withdrawal of counsel results in Plaintiff’s

proceeding pro se in this action, the record must be updated to

reflect Plaintiff’s address. Plaintiff’s address as stated on

Plaintiff’s opposition is no longer 757 Laverne Avenue, Clovis,

California 93611, but rather is 2680 Miami Street, Fresno,

California, 93727; and his telephone number is (559) 292-9210.

The Clerk IS DIRECTED to update the docket to reflect the

Miami Street address and the telephone number of Plaintiff. 

IV. Informational Order to Plaintiff

Plaintiff IS INFORMED that failure to take appropriate legal

action may result in serious legal consequences, and

consideration of obtaining legal assistance is strongly advised.

Plaintiff is further advised that regardless of whether or

not Plaintiff is represented by counsel, Plaintiff will be

expected to comply with all the requirements and deadlines stated

in the Court’s order of October 20, 2006, including appearing

personally (unless Plaintiff has previously retained counsel who

has substituted in as counsel of record) at the scheduling

conference presently set for January 10, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., and

Case 1:05-cv-01184-LJO -SMS Document 42 Filed 11/14/06 Page 7 of 8
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

8

further cooperating in preparing a joint scheduling conference

statement due to be filed one week before the scheduling

conference. 

Further, Plaintiff will be expected to comply with the

pertinent Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As a party appearing

in propria persona, Plaintiff is also required by Local Rule 83-

183(b) to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of

address or telephone number.

A failure to comply with an order of the Court may result in

a recommendation that the action be dismissed or in other

sanctions. Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01184-LJO -SMS Document 42 Filed 11/14/06 Page 8 of 8