Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01070/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01070-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Default

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KRATZ AERIAL AG SERVICE, INC., a 

North Dakota Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN A. SLYKERMAN, individually 

and dba Agra Fly; et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-01070-MCE-JLT

ORDER

Presently before the Court is a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (ECF No. 55) filed

by Elliott H. Stone of the Stone Law Firm (“Counsel”), counsel for Plaintiff Kratz Aerial Ag 

Service Inc. (“Plaintiff”), by which Counsel seeks to withdraw, leaving Plaintiff 

unrepresented. This Motion is governed by the requirements of Eastern District of 

California Local Rule 182(d), which provides, among other things, that an attorney may 

not withdraw under these circumstances, absent a noticed motion, appropriate affidavits, 

notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared, and compliance with the 

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

Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(6) permits a member of the State Bar to seek to 

withdraw from representation when “[t]he member believes in good faith . . . that the 

tribunal will find the existence of . . . good cause for withdrawal.” However, “[a] member 

Case 1:15-cv-01070-MCE-JLT Document 60 Filed 12/08/16 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

2

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 counsel, . . . and complying 

with applicable laws and rules.” Cal. Rules of Prof’l Conduct 3-700(A)(2). 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.” E.D. Cal. Local 

R. 182(d); Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. Edwin Moldauer, No. 1:02-cv-06599 OWW 

DLB, 2009 WL 89141, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009). 

The Court hereby submits the foregoing Motion (ECF No. 55) without oral 

argument, and the December 15, 2017, hearing is VACATED. The Court defers ruling 

on the Motion, however, pending the submission of additional information. Not later than 

ten (10) days following the date this order is electronically filed, Counsel is directed to file 

an affidavit advising the Court of Plaintiff’s last known address and, given that Plaintiff is 

an entity unable to represent itself, outlining what steps, if any, counsel has taken to 

assist Plaintiff in securing new representation or to ensure Plaintiff had appropriate time 

to do so.

1

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 7, 2016

 1 The Court is aware that Counsel provided Plaintiff’s last known address in the Motion to 

Withdraw itself, but the Local Rules require that the address be provided by way of affidavit. 

Case 1:15-cv-01070-MCE-JLT Document 60 Filed 12/08/16 Page 2 of 2