Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01228/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01228-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

LISA BROOCKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C R BARD INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01228-DAD-BAM

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD 

FOR PLAINTIFF LISA BROOCKS

(Doc. No. 42)

Pending before the Court is the motion of Ben C. Martin, Laura J. Baughman, and 

Thomas Wm. Arbon of the Law Office of Ben C. Martin, now known as Martin Baughman, 

PLLC (“Movants”), to withdraw as attorney of record for Lisa Broocks (“Plaintiff”). (Doc. No. 

13.) The matter was heard on February 28, 2020, before United States Magistrate Judge 

Barbara A. McAuliffe. Counsel Laura J. Baughman and Christine Woods appeared by 

telephone. Plaintiff Lisa Broocks appeared in person. Counsel Shawtina Lewis appeared by 

telephone on behalf of Defendants C R Bard Incorporated and Bard Peripheral Vascular 

Incorporated.

Having considered the moving papers, arguments and records in this action, the motion to 

withdraw as counsel of record will be GRANTED. 

BACKGROUND

This case was transferred to this Court on September 6, 2019, from a multidistrict 

litigation proceeding (“MDL”) before Senior District Judge David G. Campbell in the United 

States District Court for the District of Arizona involving personal injury cases brought as a 

Case 1:19-cv-01228-DAD-BAM Document 48 Filed 03/03/20 Page 1 of 5
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

result of certain inferior vena cava (“IVC”) filters manufactured by Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 3, 

5.) On December 27, 2019, the Court issued a Scheduling Order in this case setting deadlines for 

amendment of the pleadings, initial disclosures, expert and non-expert discovery, and dispositive 

motions. (Doc. No. 39.)

On January 17, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel filed the instant motion to withdraw as attorney 

of record. (Doc. No. 42.) On January 29, 2020, the Court issued an order setting this matter for 

hearing on February 28, 2020, and directing Plaintiff’s counsel to serve Plaintiff with copies of 

the motion and the Court’s order. (Doc. No. 43.) Any opposition or statement of non-opposition 

was to be filed on or before February 14, 2020. (Id.) 

On February 5, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a proof of service indicating that the 

motion and the Court’s January 29, 2020 order had been served on Plaintiff by certified mail at 

her last known address and that Plaintiff had signed for the documents on February 3, 2020. 

(Doc. No. 45.) On February 6, 2020, Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to the 

motion. (Doc. No. 46.)

To date, no opposition has been submitted or otherwise filed with the Court. Plaintiff 

appeared in person and opposed the motion at the hearing. 

DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Withdraw

According to the motion, Plaintiff’s counsel moves to withdraw because counsel 

“through a letter has terminated the attorney-client relationship with Plaintiff. A conflict had 

arisen between counsel and [Plaintiff].” (Doc. No. 43.) Counsel also requests that Plaintiff be 

given sixty (60) days to retain successor counsel. (Id.) 

B. Legal Standard

In the Eastern District of California, attorneys representing parties to a civil case are 

subject to this Court’s Local Rule 182(d) which provides:

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 

Case 1:19-cv-01228-DAD-BAM Document 48 Filed 03/03/20 Page 2 of 5
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

addresses of the client and the efforts made to notify the client of the motion to 

withdraw. Withdrawal as attorney is governed by the Rules of Professional 

Conduct of the State Bar of California, and the attorney shall conform to the 

requirements of those Rules. The authority and duty of the attorney of record 

shall continue until relieved by order of the Court issued hereunder. Leave to 

withdraw may be granted subject to such appropriate conditions as the Court 

deems fit.

L.R. 182(d); see also Thomas v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 2014 WL 7359180, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 

Dec. 23, 2014) (“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.’”); 

Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, 2009 WL 89141, *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009) (finding 

that the decision to grant or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of 

the trial court).

The Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California provide that an attorney 

may withdraw from representation if the client’s conduct “renders it unreasonably difficult for 

the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively.” California Rules of Professional Conduct, 

Rule 1.16(b)(4). The Rules also allow for permissive withdrawal where “the lawyer believes in 

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

other good cause for withdrawal.” Rule 1.16(b)(10). As noted above, the decision to grant 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is within the discretion of the trial court. Thomas 2014 WL 

7359180, at *1; Canandaigua, 2009 WL 89141 at *1. “In ruling on a motion to withdraw, some 

courts have looked to the following factors: 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.” Canandaigua, 2009 WL 89141 at *1. “In determining whether good cause for 

withdrawal exists, courts have considered whether the client is cooperative or seeks to dictate 

litigation strategy.” Id. at *2 (citation omitted). 

C. Analysis

In this case, the Court finds that the conduct of Plaintiff renders it unreasonably difficult 

for Movants to carry out their employment effectively. The Court also finds that Movants have 

Case 1:19-cv-01228-DAD-BAM Document 48 Filed 03/03/20 Page 3 of 5
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

4

demonstrated good cause for permissive withdrawal as attorney of record for Plaintiff. Given the 

procedural posture of this case, withdrawal will not result in prejudice to the other litigants, nor 

will it cause harm to the administration of justice and/or unduly delay the resolution of the case. 

The Court notes that Messrs. Martin and Arbon are not admitted to practice before this Court and 

have previously been terminated as counsel of record for Plaintiff. (See Doc. Nos. 37-38, 40-

41.) Nonetheless, the motion to withdraw shall be granted as to all Movants and Lisa Broocks 

will be substituted in propria persona in place and stead of Movants. The Court will further grant 

Plaintiff a brief extension of time to secure new counsel. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. The motion to withdraw as attorney of record for Plaintiff Lisa Broocks filed by 

Ben C. Martin, Laura J. Baughman, and Thomas Wm. Arbon of the Law Office of Ben C. 

Martin, now known as Martin Baughman, PLLC (Doc. No. 42) is GRANTED;

2. Lisa Broocks is substituted in propria persona in place and stead of Ben C. 

Martin, Laura J. Baughman, and Thomas Wm. Arbon of the Law Office of Ben C. Martin, now 

known as Martin Baughman, PLLC;

3. The Court SETS a STATUS CONFERENCE for May 6, 2020, at 9:00 AM in 

Courtroom 8 (BAM) before the undersigned. The purpose of the conference will be to 

address whether Ms. Lisa Broocks has secured new counsel or intends to represent herself in 

propria persona. The parties are encouraged to appear at the status conference by telephone with 

each party using the following dial-in number and access code: dial-in number 1-877-411-

9748; access code 3219139; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket with the contact 

information of Lisa Broocks at her last known address:

Lisa Broocks

716 Santa Alicia Drive

Rhonert Park, CA 94928

Case 1:19-cv-01228-DAD-BAM Document 48 Filed 03/03/20 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Plaintiff is advised that pursuant to Local Rules 182(f) and 183(b) she is under a 

continuing duty to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of address or telephone 

number.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01228-DAD-BAM Document 48 Filed 03/03/20 Page 5 of 5