Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02030/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02030-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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 

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE 

COMPANY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

U.S. SMALL BUSINESS 

ADMINISTRATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-02030-KJM-AC 

ORDER 

This matter is before the court on a motion to withdraw by James J. Falcone, 

counsel for defendants Linda H. Hodgson and Fredrick W. Hodgson. ECF No. 234-1. The 

motion is unopposed. As explained below, the motion is GRANTED. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

The local rules of this district require an attorney who would withdraw to obtain 

leave of the court upon a noticed motion. E.D. Cal. L.R. 182(d). Local Rule 182(d) also requires 

an attorney to provide notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared, and an 

affidavit stating the current or last known address of the client. Finally, to comply with Local 

Rule 182(d), the attorney must conform to the requirements of the California Rules of 

Professional Conduct. Id. California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700 provides several 

Case 2:13-cv-02030-KJM-AC Document 241 Filed 12/05/16 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

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), and 

where client’s conduct has “render[ed] it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the 

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

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 

Good cause exists to grant Mr. Falcone’s motion because defendants have not paid 

counsel’s fees and costs and have failed to respond to Mr. Falcone’s communications and 

repeated requests for payment. Falcone Decl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 234-2. As a result, Mr. Falcone 

states he has experienced difficulty in carrying out his representation, including handling other 

aspects of case strategy and procedure. Id. ¶ 3. 

The attorney-client relationship cannot be maintained where as here there is an 

irremediable breakdown in communication between plaintiff and counsel such that counsel can 

no longer effectively represent plaintiff. McNally, 2010 WL 1687657, at *1–2 (withdrawal by 

counsel allowed where irreconcilable differences arose between counsel and client, and where 

client had not paid attorney’s fees). 

As required, counsel has provided complete contact information for defendants 

and served advance written and verbal notice to plaintiff. Falcon Decl. at 2. 

Given that good cause exists, the court turns to whether there is a risk of prejudice 

to defendants if the motion is granted. Here, Mr. Falcone states defendants will not be left 

Case 2:13-cv-02030-KJM-AC Document 241 Filed 12/05/16 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

without a lawyer because co-counsel Richard Anton Vantrood will continue to represent them. 

ECF No. 234-1 at 1. Mr. Vantrood has served as defendants’ counsel since January 2015, see

ECF No. 159, and no prejudice appears if Vantrood proceeds without Falcone’s assistance. 

Further, no other litigant contends prejudice will result from withdrawal. Therefore, the court 

finds the risk of prejudice to defendants is minimal if not nonexistent if the motion is granted. 

 Considering Mr. Falcone’s reasons for withdrawal, the absence of prejudice to defendants 

and other litigants, the absence of harm to the administration of justice, and the absence of 

possible delay, Mr. Falcone’s motion to withdraw will be GRANTED. 

III. CONCLUSION 

The motion to withdraw is GRANTED. 

This order resolves ECF No. 234. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 5, 2016. 

Case 2:13-cv-02030-KJM-AC Document 241 Filed 12/05/16 Page 3 of 3