Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00411/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00411-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance,

the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. Local Rule

78-230(h). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENERAL STEEL DOMESTIC

SALES, LLC, dba GENERAL

STEEL CORPORATION,

NO. CIV. S-06-411 LKK/KJM

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

JOHN W. SUTHERS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

The matter is before the court on the motion of Mark S. Cohen,

Susan M. Horner, Cohen Horner, LLP, Mark L. Biddison, and Stevens,

Littman, Biddison, Tharp & Weinberg (“Counsel”) to withdraw as

counsel of record for defendants Steelwise, LLC, Harold G. Donahue,

and Timothy McKenna (“clients”) in the above-captioned case.1

////

Case 2:06-cv-00411-LKK -KJM Document 71 Filed 06/12/06 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

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

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

attorney 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.” 

Counsel has provided three substantive reasons why the court

should grant the motion for leave to withdraw, noting that the

clients have deliberately disregarded a written agreement with

Cohen Horner, LLP, as to fees and expenses, have rendered it

unreasonably difficult for counsel to carry out their duties in

this matter effectively, and have knowingly and freely assented to

termination of counsel’s employment. Mot. to Withdraw at 2.

Counsel also notes that clients obtained new counsel, and have

advised clients that their new counsel should immediately file a

substitution of attorney form. Id. 

Counsel has provided notice to their clients orally and via

e-mail that either they or their new counsel must personally appear

in court on June 26, 2006 for a hearing and on August 7, 2006, for

a Status Conference. Id. at 2-3. Counsel states they have

followed Local Rule 83-182 by giving the last known address of

their clients.

Case 2:06-cv-00411-LKK -KJM Document 71 Filed 06/12/06 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

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: A member of the bar may request permission to

withdraw where the client: 

(1)“[B]reaches an agreement or obligation to the member as to

expenses or fees,” 3-700(C)(1)(F); See also In re Cedic Development

Co., 219 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2000);

(2) “[B]y other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for

the member to carry out the employment effectively,” 3-

700(C)(1)(D);

(3) “[K]nowingly and freely assents to termination of the

employment,” 3-700(C)(5).

Based on the record before the court, and pursuant to the

California Rules of Professional Conduct, the court ORDERS as

follows: 

1. Counsels’ motion to withdraw is GRANTED;

2. Counsel is directed to serve this order on their clients

and to file proof of service of same within five (5) days.

3. Counsel is directed to release all client papers and

property to clients 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, in accordance with Rule 3-700(D) of the

California Rules of Professional Conduct.

Case 2:06-cv-00411-LKK -KJM Document 71 Filed 06/12/06 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

2

 Defendants Harold G. Donahue and Timothy McKenna may appear

in propria persona, but Steelwise LLC must be represented by

counsel.

4

4. The Status Conference scheduled for August 7, 2006 at 1:30

p.m. in the above-captioned case is CONFIRMED. Clients are

directed to notify the court of their new attorney or of their

intent to proceed in propria persona prior to the status

conference.2 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 12, 2006

Case 2:06-cv-00411-LKK -KJM Document 71 Filed 06/12/06 Page 4 of 4