Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02228/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02228-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAROLYN EVETTE WADE, Civil No. 14cv2228-LAB (DHB)

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

OF RECORD

[ECF No. 17]

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

On April 2, 2015, attorney Lawrence D. Rohlfing filed a Motion to be Relieved as

Counsel of Record. (ECF No. 17.) Mr. Rohlfing is currently counsel of record for

Plaintiff Carolyn Evette Wade. All parties to the case have been notified of the motion

and there have been no objections filed. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to

be relieved is GRANTED.

I. DISCUSSION

Mr. Rohlfing seeks to withdraw because Plaintiff has consistently failed to

communicate with him since February 26, 2015. (ECF No. 17-1 at 4, ¶ 9.) Plaintiff’s

failure to communicate with her counsel is sufficient to allow Mr. Rohlfing withdrawal

under California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d), which allows withdrawal

where the client “renders it unreasonably difficult for [counsel] to carry out the

employment effectively.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d).

However, counsel may not withdraw until reasonable steps are taken “to avoid

reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving due notice

- 1 - 14cv2228-LAB (DHB)

Case 3:14-cv-02228-LAB-DHB Document 18 Filed 04/10/15 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

to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, complying with rule 3-

700(D), and complying with applicable laws and rules.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(A).

Here, Mr. Rohlfing has complied with Rule 3-700(A). On February 26, 2015, he

corresponded with Plaintiff after he received the administrative record. (ECF NO. 17-1

at 4, ¶ 2.) Plaintiff did not respond. Mr. Rohlfing corresponded with Plaintiff concerning

her lack of response on March 24, 2015. (Id. at ¶3.) The address Mr. Rohlfing used for

the correspondence was 4073 Oakcrest Dr., Apt. 3, San Diego, California, 92015. (Id.

at ¶ 8.) On March 24, 2015, Mr. Rohlfing’s office also attempted to contact Plaintiff by

telephone at (619) 674-6623. An unidentified person answered the call, and confirmed

that Plaintiff used the number to receive phone calls, and that she received mail at the

address on Oakcrest Drive. (Id. at ¶ 4.) As of the filing of the instant motion, Mr.

Rohlfing has not heard from Plaintiff. 

II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Mr. Rohlfing has made sufficiently

diligent efforts to locate and communicate with his client. However, Plaintiff has been

non-responsive. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Mr. Rohlfing’s motion to withdraw,

and ORDERS as follows: 

1. Mr. Rohlfing shall send by registered mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff

at the 4073 Oakcrest Drive address noted above, and to any other known

address for Plaintiff. Mr. Rohlfing shall file a declaration stating that he has

done so on or before April 15, 2015.

2. Failure to comply with the above condition shall result in the denial of Mr.

Rohlfing’s motion to withdraw. 

3. Plaintiff has 45 days from the date of this order to obtain new counsel or be

prepared to proceed pro se. 

 4. The briefing schedule is extended as follows:

a. Plaintiff shall file and serve her motion for summary judgment on or

before June 26, 2015.

- 2 - 14cv2228-LAB (DHB)

Case 3:14-cv-02228-LAB-DHB Document 18 Filed 04/10/15 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

b. Defendant shall file and serve her cross-motion for summary

judgment and opposition on or before July 24, 2015. 

c. Plaintiff shall file and serve her opposition to the cross-motion and

reply to Defendant’s opposition on or before August 7, 2015.

d. Defendant shall file any reply to Plaintiff’s opposition on or before

August 14, 2015.

e. Unless the Court directs otherwise in advance, this matter will be

resolved on the papers and without oral argument. Civ. L.R.

7.1(d)(1). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 10, 2015

DAVID H. BARTICK

United States Magistrate Judge

- 3 - 14cv2228-LAB (DHB)

Case 3:14-cv-02228-LAB-DHB Document 18 Filed 04/10/15 Page 3 of 3