Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02048/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02048-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF IBEW

LOCAL UNION NO. 100 PENSION

TRUST FUND, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WILLIAM CHARLES PORGES dba

ACCELERATED ELECTRIC, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-02048-LJO-SKO

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE MOTION TO

WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY OF

RECORD FOR PORGES

DEFENDANTS

(Docket No. 23)

On December 3, 2012, counsel for Defendants William Charles Porges DBA Accelerated

Electric and Porges Enterprises, Inc. DBA Accelerated Electric Inc. ("Porges Defendants") filed a

motion to withdraw as counsel of record for Defendants. (Doc. 48.) For the reasons set forth 1

below, counsel's motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The Local Rules for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Rule

182(d) provide specific requirements for the withdrawal of counsel where, as here, the attorney will

leave the client in propria persona. Local Rule 182(d) provides, in pertinent part, that:

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 parties 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.

The Court notes that moving counsel is also the attorney of record for Defendant American Contractors

1

Indemnity Company ("American Contractors"). Counsel's motion does not seek withdrawal as counsel of record for

American Contractors. (See Doc. 23, 23-1, 23-2.)

Case 1:11-cv-02048-LJO-SKO Document 26 Filed 01/07/13 Page 1 of 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

Here, Defendants' counsel's motion does not comport with the requirements of Local Rule

182(d). The Declaration of Chad T. Wishchuk does not provide the current or last known address

or addresses of the clients as required. (See Wishchuk Decl., Doc. 23-1.) Further, although Mr.

Wishchuk indicates that the counsel's law firm "notified Defendants that it would be withdrawing

as Defendants' counsel in this action and will serve a copy of this motion on Defendants as soon as

it is filed," counsel has failed to set forth what efforts were used to notify the clients and failed to file

a proof of service indicating that a copy of the motion was served on the clients. 

The Court notes that the Porges Defendants have consented to counsel's withdrawal. (See

Doc. 23-2.) However, notwithstanding the client's knowledge of counsel's intention to withdraw,

the motion is still procedurallydefective since counsel fails to include the Porges Defendants' contact

information, fails to set forth the effort made by counsel to notify the clients, and fails to provide a

proof of service. Local Rule 182(d). As counsel's withdrawal will leave the Porges Defendants in

propria persona, counsel's failure to meet the requirements set forth in Local Rule 182(d) precludes

the Court from considering the motion to withdraw at this time.2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Counsel's motion to withdraw as attorney of record for the Porges Defendants is

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and

2. The hearing on this motion set for January 9, 2013, is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In the event that Defendants' counsel wishes to re-file a motion to withdraw that complies with Local Rule

2

182(d), the motion should address the issue of whether counsel intends to remain as attorney of record for Defendant

American Contractors. Additionally, any notice counsel provides to Defendants should inform them that, if counsel's

motion to withdraw is granted, Defendants will be required to obtain new counsel. See Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony,

506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993) ("[A] corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel."); Local

Rule 183(a) ("A corporation or other entity may appear only by an attorney.")

2

Case 1:11-cv-02048-LJO-SKO Document 26 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 2