Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00370/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00370-2/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court is the Motion by the Williamson Law Firm and attorney Peter M. 

Williamson to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff Amy Duran. (Doc. 14.) Defendants have 

filed a notice of non-opposition. (Doc. 15.) The matter was heard on September 20, 2013, before 

United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Counsel Peter M. Williamson appeared in

person on behalf of Plaintiff. Counsel Ryan Nelson appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendants. 

Despite delaying the start of the hearing for fifteen (15) minutes, Plaintiff failed to appear. Having 

considered the moving papers, arguments presented at the hearing, as well as the Court’s file, the 

motion is GRANTED.

AMY DURAN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE, et al.,

Defendants.

/

Case No. 1: 13-cv-00370-AWI-BAM

ORDER GRANTING PETER 

WILLIAMSON’S MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW

Case 1:13-cv-00370-BAM Document 17 Filed 09/24/13 Page 1 of 4
2

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

BACKGROUND

This action arises from an incident that occurred on January 14, 2012, at Plaintiff’s residence 

located at 143 North Crestview Street in Porterville, California. Plaintiff was living at the residence 

with her then 11-month old son. At approximately 5:00 p.m., Defendants Bruce Sokoloff and M. 

Grey, two Porterville Police Officers, arrived at her front door. The officers claimed that they had 

received an anonymous tip that Plaintiff had been drinking alcohol while ingesting prescription

medication. Defendant Officers claimed they smelled natural gas and entered Plaintiff’s home without 

a warrant, allegedly due to exigent circumstances. At this time, Defendant officers searched Plaintiff’s 

home. 

Upon completing the search, plaintiff was arrested and charged with violating California Penal 

Code § 272a(a) – child endangerment. As a consequence of her arrest, Plaintiff’s son was taken into 

protective custody by Tulare County Child Protective Services. Immediately after being arrested, 

Plaintiff was transported to Sierra View District Hospital where a blood sample was obtained to 

determine Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level. The tests results established that Plaintiff was not legally 

intoxicated. Plaintiff remained in the Kern County Jail for five (5) days until released. Ultimately, all 

criminal charges filed against Plaintiff were dismissed.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated Plaintiff’s civil rights under 

federal and California law. 

DISCUSSION

In the Eastern District of California, a motion to withdraw is governed by this Court’s local 

rules and Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California” (“California Rules of 

Professional Conduct”). Local Rule 182(d) provides: 

Unless otherwise provided herein, 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 persons who have appeared. The attorney shall 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. 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 

Case 1:13-cv-00370-BAM Document 17 Filed 09/24/13 Page 2 of 4
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

hereunder. Leave to withdraw may be granted subject to such appropriate conditions as 

the Court deems fit.

LR 182(d); see also, Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. Edwin Moldauer, 2009 WL 89141, *1 (E.D. Cal. 

2009) (Whether to grant leave to withdraw is subject to the sound discretion of the Court and “may be 

granted subject to such appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit.”)

California Rule of Professional Conduct 3–700(C)(6) permits a member of the State Bar to 

seek to permissive withdrawal when “[t]he member believes in good faith ... that the tribunal will find 

the existence of ... good cause for withdrawal.” However, “[a] member shall not withdraw from 

employment until the member has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to 

the rights of the client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for employment of 

other ... and complying with applicable laws and rules.” California Rules of Professional Conduct 3–

700(A)(2). 

Counsel Williamson seeks to withdraw because he is retiring from the practice of law. Counsel 

is in the process of winding down his law practice with plans to retire by the end of 2013. Counsel’s 

retirement plan includes his relocation from California to South Carolina where he intends to take up 

permanent residence. 

Counsel represents that, for the past six (6) months, Plaintiff has repeatedly been advised of 

Counsel’s retirement plans and the fact that she needs to obtain new counsel. Counsel has contacted 

other attorneys to inquire if they would take Plaintiff’s case, and has provided Plaintiff the names of 

other attorneys who may be willing to take her case. Over the course of the past several months, 

Plaintiff has made numerous attempts to retain new counsel but, to date, has been unsuccessful. 

Counsel argues Plaintiff will not suffer any significant prejudice from his withdrawal because a 

scheduling order has not yet been issued and discovery has not begun. Counsel has served this Motion 

to Withdraw on Plaintiff via Certified Mail, return receipt requested, to Plaintiff’s last known address

of: 22122 Victory Blvd., Apt. H-208, Woodland Hills CA 91367.

The Court will grant Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw. This case has not proceeded past the 

pleadings stage and Plaintiff has ample time to continue her search for substitute counsel or prepare to 

Case 1:13-cv-00370-BAM Document 17 Filed 09/24/13 Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

litigate her claims in propria persona. Thus, the prejudice to Plaintiff is minimal. Moreover, by 

seeking substitute counsel on Plaintiff’s behalf, Counsel has taken reasonable steps to avoid any 

foreseeable prejudice to Plaintiff. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. The Motion to Withdraw by Williamson Law Firm and attorney Peter M. Williamson is 

GRANTED.

2. The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this Order at Plaintiff’s last known addresses as 

follows and which shall be used as the Plaintiff’s address of record:

AMY DURAN

22122 Victory Blvd., Apt. H-208, 

Woodland Hills CA 91367.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00370-BAM Document 17 Filed 09/24/13 Page 4 of 4