Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01891/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01891-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Kevin Lawless and his firm, Childers & Associates, seek to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff. 

(Docs. 10, 11) The Court held a hearing on March 31, 2016, the motion was not opposed by any party

and Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing.

1

For the reasons set forth below, the motion to withdraw as 

attorney of record is GRANTED. 

I. Background

Defendants initiated this action in this Court by filing its notice of removal from the Kern 

County Superior Court on December 18, 2015. (Doc. 1) In this action, Plaintiff claims that, while 

 

1 Mr. Alfonso contacted the Clerk of the Court on March 30, 2016 and confirmed that he would appear via CourtCall. In 

addition, CourtCall confirmed that it expected Mr. Alfonso to appear via telephone but he failed to call into the service for

the hearing.

REYNALDO ALFONSO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER 

CORPORATION, D/B/A AMTRAK,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-001891 --- JLT

ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF PLAINTIFF’S 

COUNSEL TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY OF 

RECORD (Docs. 10,11)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO UPDATE 

DOCKET AND SERVE PLAINTIFF

ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE RE: 

CONSENT/MANDATORY SCHEDULING 

CONFERENCE

Case 1:15-cv-01891-JLT Document 14 Filed 03/31/16 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

traveling on Amtrak with his service dog, Amtrak employees pushed and pulled him off the train. Id. at 

6. As a result, he fell and, in doing so, suffered a grand mal seizure. Id. In this action, Plaintiff raises 

various claims including negligence, battery, assault, and violations of California’s Disabled Persons 

Act and the Unruh Act among other claims.

In this motion, Plaintiff’s attorneys report that due to an “event” which occurred in their offices 

on January 8, 2016, that a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship and safety and prudence, 

requires the attorney to withdraw. (Doc. 11 at 4)2 In addition, Mr. Lawless reports that before this 

“event,” counsel had informed Plaintiff that he could not represent him in federal court. Id. 

On January 8, 2016, Mr. Lawless notified Plaintiff that he would no longer represent him. 

(Doc. 11 at 7) He followed this with a letter sent certified mail to Plaintiff telling him of his need to 

obtain replacement counsel and provided him a list of attorneys in San Francisco and Bakersfield. Id. 

Next, on February 9, 2016, Mr. Lawless spoke to Plaintiff to ensure he received the letter and Plaintiff 

verified that he had done so. Id. Plaintiff reported that he was going to be meeting with attorneys that 

week and reported that his brother, Tony, would pick up his file. Id. Indeed, on February 10, 2016, 

Mr. Tony Alfonso appeared at Mr. Lawless’ office and obtained the file. Id.

Nevertheless, when Mr. Lawless contacted Plaintiff on February 16, 2016, Plaintiff still had not 

retained new counsel. (Doc. 11 at 7) Though Mr. Lawless served this motion to Plaintiff at his last 

known address, Plaintiff has not responded to the motion in any fashion and did not appear at the 

hearing.

II. Legal Standards for Withdrawal of Counsel

Withdrawal of counsel is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of 

California and the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. See 

LR 182. Withdrawal is permitted under the Rules of Professional Conduct if a client “renders it 

unreasonably difficult for the member to carry our employment effectively.” Cal. R.P.C. 3-

700(C)(1)(d). Local Rule 182(d) provides:

Unless otherwise provided herein, an attorney who has appeared may not withdraw 

 

2 The Court cites only to Doc. 11 because the document filed at Doc. 10 is identical, except that Doc 10 omits the proof of 

service attached to Doc. 11.

Case 1:15-cv-01891-JLT Document 14 Filed 03/31/16 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

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. 

Id. Likewise, California’s Rules require the moving attorney to serve notice of motion and the 

declaration and other parties who have appeared in the case. CRC 3.1362(d). 

The decision to grant withdrawal is within the discretion of the Court, and withdrawal “may be 

granted subject to such appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit.” LR 182; see Canandaigua Wine 

Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, 2009 WL 989141, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2009) (“The decision to grant or deny 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial court.”). Factors the Court may 

consider include: (1) the reasons for withdrawal, (2) prejudice that may be caused to the other litigants, 

(3) harm caused to the administration of justice; and (4) delay to the resolution of the case caused by 

withdrawal. Canandaigua Wine Co., 2009 WL 989141, at *1-2

III. Discussion and Analysis

Mr. Lawless’ declaration demonstrates that the attorney-client relationship has broken down 

such that he has no option but to withdraw. (Doc. 11 at 4) Moreover, Mr. Lawless told Plaintiff—

before the event (which makes Mr. Lawless believe that withdraw is the “safe and prudent” thing to do) 

that he could not represent him in federal court. Id. at 6. Mr. Lawless has made significant efforts to 

assist Plaintiff to obtain new counsel and has followed-up to ensure that this occurred--though it has 

not. Id. at 7. However, Plaintiff has been in possession of his file since mid-February 2016. Id.

Counsel served the motion to withdraw on Plaintiff to his last known address as required by the 

California Rules. (Doc. 11 at 7; Doc. 11-1 at 1-2) No party has filed an opposition or a statement of 

non-opposition to the motion to withdrawal, and it does not appear Plaintiff would suffer prejudice as a 

result of the withdrawal. Given that the case has not yet been scheduled and there are no discovery or 

other deadlines in place, it appears any delay caused by the withdrawal would be minimal, and there is 

little risk of harm to the administration of justice.

IV. Conclusion and Order

Mr. Lawless followed the procedural and substantive requirements set forth in the California 

Rules of Professional Conduct and the Local Rules in filing the motion to withdraw as counsel, and set 

Case 1:15-cv-01891-JLT Document 14 Filed 03/31/16 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

forth sufficient reasons for the withdrawal. Therefore, the Court is acting within its discretion to grant 

the motion to withdraw. See LR 182. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The motion to withdraw (Doc. 45) is GRANTED;

2. The Clerk’s Office SHALL TERMINATE Kevin Lawless and the law firm of 

Childers and Associates as counsel of record for Plaintiff on the Court docket, and update the docket 

to reflect Plaintiff’s self-represented status and his last known address as follows:

Reynaldo Alfonso

1750 McAllister Street, Apt. 1008

San Francisco, CA 94115

3. The status conference re: consent/mandatory scheduling conference is set on May 5, 

2016 at 9:30 a.m. The parties are reminded of their obligation to confer at least 20 days before the 

conference and to file their joint scheduling conference statement no later than April 28, 2016. (Doc. 2 

at 2);

4. Plaintiff SHALL file his consent or decline to magistrate judge jurisdiction no later 

than April 11, 2016.

Plaintiff is advised that his failure to comply with any order of the Court may result in 

the action being dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01891-JLT Document 14 Filed 03/31/16 Page 4 of 4