Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02599/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02599-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICOLE CHAKER, an individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv2599-GPC(BGS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO WITHDRAW AS

APPOINTED PRO BONO

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF;

AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR STAY

[Dkt. Nos. 122, 126.]

vs.

ROBERT ADAMS, an individual;

Officer HERZIG, an individual; CITY

OF SAN DIEGO, a government entity;

and DOES 1-50, inclusive

Defendants.

Before the Court is San Diego County Volunteer Lawyer Program (“SDVLP”)

and its volunteer attorneyTruc Do’s motion to withdraw as appointed pro bono counsel

for Plaintiff Nicole Chaker. (Dkt. No. 122.) No opposition has been filed. A hearing

was held on March 11, 2016. (Dkt. No. 127.) Appointed counsel Truc Do, Esq.

appeared as well as defense counsel Stacy Plotkin-Wolff, Esq. Plaintiff did not appear.

Instead of filing an opposition, Plaintiff filed a request for a stay. (Dkt. No.

126.) The request for a stay does not address the motion to withdraw as pro bono

counsel. Based on the reasoning below, the Court GRANTS SDVLP and Attorney

Do’s unopposed motion to withdraw as appointed pro bono counsel, and also DENIES

Plaintiff’s request for a stay. 

- 1 - [10cv2599-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:10-cv-02599-GPC-BGS Document 128 Filed 03/14/16 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

27

28

Discussion

“An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” Darby v.

City of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992). The trial court has discretion

whether to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw in a civil case. See La Grand

v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998); Stewart v. Boeing Co., No. CV 12-

5621 RSWL(AGRx), 2013 WL 3168269, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2013). Courts

should consider the following factors when ruling upon a motion to withdraw as

counsel: (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may

cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of

justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.

Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc., No. C12-0991JLR, 2014 WL 556010, at *4 (W.D.

Wash. Feb. 12, 2014); Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. C09-01643 SBA, 2010

WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010). 

Rule 3-700 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of

California provides that an attorney may request a withdrawal if it is unreasonably

difficult for counsel to carry out his employment effectively. Cal. R. Prof. Conduct

3-700(C).

According to the motion to withdraw, Truc Do’s firm, Jones Day, has spent about

two full months attempting to contact Plaintiff with no success. (Dkt. No. 122.) Jones

Day has tried contacting her by U.S. certified mail but it was returned unopened, has

tried to locate Plaintiff’s telephone number, which she has declined to provide the

Court, without success, and has even personally tried to visit her at her home but no one

answered the door, although it sounded like the house was occupied. (Id.) In a

supplemental status report, counsel wrote that on February 3, 2016, Plaintiff left two

voicemail messages both of which were mostly incoherent and questioned whether she

was actually an attorney and seemed to allude that she was part of a larger conspiracy

with the police and the District Attorney’s Office against her. (Dkt. No. 124.) Later that

day, Plaintiff called Jones Day and spoke with the Office Administrator. Although it

- 2 - [10cv2599-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:10-cv-02599-GPC-BGS Document 128 Filed 03/14/16 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

27

28

was obvious who she was, Plaintiff refused to identify herself, referenced Jones Day’s

letter requesting withdrawal and repeatedly asked whether Truc Do was really an

attorney. (Id.) Due to her aggressive nature and refusal to provide identifying

information, the Administrator did not divulge any information about AttorneyDo. (Id.) 

Plaintiff became increasingly aggressive and finally hung up after telling the

Administrator, “fuck off, asshole.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 on

December 17, 2010 with the assistance of counsel. (Dkt. No. 1.) On October 10, 2012,

the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw. (Dkt. No. 38.) Since that

date, for over three years, the Court has granted numerous requests for a stay and

continuances in order to allow Plaintiff to obtain alternate counsel and her alleged

inability to prosecute due to her medical condition. During that time, on May 12, 2014,

the Court appointed pro bono counsel, Dkt. No. 71; however, due to an actual conflict,

including persistent and irreconcilable differences and a communication breakdown, the

Court granted pro bono counsel’s motion to withdraw at a hearing on July 16, 2014. 

Then, on December 9, 2015, the Court appointed San Diego Volunteer Lawyer

as pro bono counsel. (Dkt. No. 121.) Volunteer lawyer, Truc Do, an attorney at a

reputable international law firm, agreed to represent Plaintiff. However, due to an

inability to contact Plaintiff and communication breakdown between Plaintiff and

counsel’s firm, the Court finds it appropriate to grant appointed counsel’s motion to

withdraw. 

Based on the moving papers and a review of the case, the Court concludes that

the withdrawal will not prejudice litigants, harm the administration of justice or unduly

delay the resolution of the case. Based on the above, the Court GRANTS SDLVP and

its volunteer Attorney Truc Do’s motion to withdraw as appointed pro bono counsel for

Plaintiff. 

On March 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a request for a stay for good cause. (Dkt. No.

126.) The request provides no reason, let alone good cause, for a stay of the case. 

- 3 - [10cv2599-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:10-cv-02599-GPC-BGS Document 128 Filed 03/14/16 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

27

28

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a stay. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 14, 2016

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 4 - [10cv2599-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:10-cv-02599-GPC-BGS Document 128 Filed 03/14/16 Page 4 of 4