Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00007/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00007-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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 

AT&T MOBILITY LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GENERAL CHARLES E. “CHUCK” 

YEAGER (RET.); ED BOWLIN; CONNIE 

BOWLIN; AVIATION AUTOGRAPHS; 

BOWLIN & ASSOCIATES, INC.; LAW 

OFFICES OF JOANNA R. MENDOZA, 

P.C.; DE LA PENA & HOLIDAY, LLP; 

LESSER LAW GROUP, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-0007-KJM-DAD 

ORDER 

R. Parker White has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for defendant-inintervention General Charles E. “Chuck” Yeager (Ret.). ECF No. 129. Plaintiff-in-intervention 

Parsons Behle & Latimer responded, generally opposing Mr. White’s withdrawal, ECF No. 134, 

and General Yeager also opposes the motion, ECF No. 137. The matter was submitted without a 

hearing. Having considered the parties’ filings and Mr. White’s and General Yeager’s in camera 

submissions, the court grants the motion. 

The local rules of this district require an attorney who would withdraw and leave 

his or her client in propria persona to obtain leave of the court upon a noticed motion. E.D. Cal. 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-KJM-DB Document 145 Filed 01/14/15 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

L.R. 182(d). The local rules also provide that withdrawal is governed by the Rules of 

Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California. Id. California Rule of Professional Conduct 

3-700(A)(2) requires an attorney take “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 counsel, complying with rule 3-700(D) [on release of a client’s papers and property], and 

complying with applicable laws and rules.” The Rules do not allow an attorney to withdraw 

unless, among other reasons, the withdrawal is because “[t]he client . . . renders it unreasonably 

difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively . . . or . . . [t]he [attorney] 

believes in good faith, in a proceeding pending before a tribunal, that the tribunal will find the 

existence of other good cause for withdrawal.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d), (C)(6). 

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) (citing Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, Inc., 694 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th 

Cir. 1982)). 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. Deal v. Countrywide 

Home Loans, No. 09-01643, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010); CE Resource, 

Inc. v. Magellan Group, LLC, No. 08-02999, 2009 WL 3367489 at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2009); Beard v. 

Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 07-594, 2008 WL 410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008). The 

correct resolution is the one which is equitable in light of the circumstances of the particular case. 

See CE Resources, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (denying motion to withdraw despite client’s 

consent because withdrawal would have left corporation unrepresented in violation of local rules). 

Here, Mr. White seeks to withdraw because General Yeager’s conduct has 

rendered continued representation unreasonably difficult. Mot. Withdraw 2-3, ECF No. 129. Mr. 

White notified General Yeager of his intent to withdraw on October 20, 2014, and provided 

General Yeager with all pertinent deadlines on the same day. White Decl., id. at 4-5. General 

Yeager opposes the motion because he has fulfilled his obligations as a client, perceives no 

difficulty in his relationship with Mr. White, has been unable to obtain representation, is not a 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-KJM-DB Document 145 Filed 01/14/15 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

lawyer, is 91 years old, and suffers hearing loss. Opp’n Mot. Withdraw ¶¶ 4-6, ECF No. 137. 

Parsons Behle opposes the motion for largely the same reasons. See Resp. 2-3, ECF No. 134. 

Mr. White and General Yeager have also provided the court with more detailed descriptions of 

their positions for review in camera. See Minute Order, ECF No. 138. 

An evidentiary hearing is now set for February 24, 2015, on the question of Mr. 

White’s authority to enter a settlement agreement on General Yeager’s behalf. Order 9, ECF No. 

139; Minute Order, ECF No. 141. General Yeager argues he will be prejudiced should Mr. 

White’s motion be granted and the hearing goes forward, citing his lack of legal training, 

advanced age, and hearing loss. Opp’n Mot. Withdraw ¶¶ 4-6, ECF No. 137. Were the court to 

deny Mr. White’s motion, he would be required to represent General Yeager at the evidentiary 

hearing in which General Yeager will present evidence that Mr. White had no authority to enter a 

settlement agreement, and at which Mr. White may be required to testify. See Order 8:25-9:2, 

ECF No. 139. Requiring Mr. White’s continued representation would subject him to possible 

conflicts of interest, render his representation unreasonably difficult, unnecessarily complicate the 

proceedings, and likely prejudice both General Yeager and Parsons Behle. Having carefully 

considered the parties’ positions, the court finds granting the pending motion will not stand in the 

way of the evidentiary hearing proceeding to clarify basic facts relevant to whether the parties 

previously have reached a settlement. 

Mr. White’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 13, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-KJM-DB Document 145 Filed 01/14/15 Page 3 of 3