Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02042/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02042-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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 - 10cv2042-WQH-WMc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW F. MCFADDEN, an

individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv2042-WQH-WMc

ORDER

vs.

CITY OF EL CENTRO,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff

Andrew McFadden, filed by Douglas E. Geyman. (ECF No. 22). 

On September 30, 2010, Plaintiffinitiated this action by filing theComplaint. (ECF No.

1). On December 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 8). On

December 22, 2010, Defendant City of El Centro filed their Answer to the Amended

Complaint. (ECF No. 12). An Early Neutral Evaluation Conference was held on February 1,

2011, and a Case Management Conference was held on March 29, 2011, both before

Magistrate Judge William McCurine. (ECF Nos. 14, 17). 

On June 29, 2011, Douglas Geyman was appointed to this case as Plaintiff’s counsel

via substitution agreement. (EFC Nos. 19-20). On September 28, 2011, Geyman moved to

be relieved as counsel on the basis that “the relationship between [Plaintiff] McFadden and

[Geyman] has completely broken down.... render[ing] it impossible for [Geyman] to provide

any form of meaningful representation.” (ECF No. 22-1 at 2). On October 19, 2011, Plaintiff

McFadden filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to Withdraw. (ECF No. 27). 

Case 3:10-cv-02042-WQH-WMC Document 28 Filed 11/08/11 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 - 10cv2042-WQH-WMc

An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court. Darby v. City of

Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992). “The decision to grant or deny counsel’s

motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial court.” Irwin v. Mascott, 2004

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28264 (N.D. Cal. December 1, 2004), citing Washington v. Sherwin Real

Estate, Inc., 694 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1982). Among other things, courts ruling upon

motions to withdraw as counsel have considered,

(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may

cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the

administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the

resolution of the case.

Irwin, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28264 at 4.

After reviewing the record and the reasons for withdrawal noted in the Motion to be

Relieved as Counsel, the Court concludes that there is good cause to grant the Motion. The

Court further concludes that the withdrawal will not prejudice justice or unduly delay

resolution of the case; Douglas Geyman had only been attorney of record for three months

before requesting removal, and the period for discovery has not yet closed. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

Douglas Geyman is no longer the attorney of record for Plaintiff Andrew McFadden in this

case. 

Civil Local Rule 83.3 provides, in part:

Whenever a party has appeared by an attorney, the party may not

afterwards appear or act in the party’s own behalf in the action, or take any step

in that action, unless an order of substitution has first have been made by the

court, after notice to the attorney of such party, and to the opposite party....

When an attorney of record for any person ceases to act for a party, such

party must appear in person or appoint another attorney by a written substitution

of attorney signed by the party, the attorney ceasing to act, and the newly

appointed attorney, or by a written designation filed in the case and served upon

the attorney ceasing to act....

S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 83.3(g)(1)-(2).

///

///

///

Case 3:10-cv-02042-WQH-WMC Document 28 Filed 11/08/11 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 - 10cv2042-WQH-WMc

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than ninety (90) days from the date of this

Order, Plaintiff Andrew McFadden must file a motion for substitution pursuant to Local Rule

83.3, requesting an order of substitution and indicating whether he will represent himself or

have new counsel to represent him in this action. If no motion for substitution is filed within

ninety (90) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant City of

El Centro will be dismissed without prejudice.

The Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff Andrew McFadden

at his last known address: 1767 Desert Garden Dr., El Centro, CA 92243.

DATED: November 8, 2011

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02042-WQH-WMC Document 28 Filed 11/08/11 Page 3 of 3