Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00393/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00393-4/pdf.json

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

---

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

SHAUKAT “SAL” MAREDIA, et al.,)

 )

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., et )

al., )

)

 Defendants. )

______________________________)

)

PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., )

 )

 Counter-Claimant, )

 )

v. )

 )

SHAUKAT “SAL” MAREDIA, )

 )

 Counter-Defendant. )

 )

1:05-cv-00393-OWW-SMS

ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION OF

CHARLES L. DOERKSEN TO WITHDRAW

AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD (DOC. 51)

DIRECTIONS TO CLERK TO UPDATE THE

DOCKET

INFORMATIONAL ORDER TO PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Saukat “Sal” Maredia is

proceeding with a civil action in this Court. Plaintiff’s counsel

has filed a non-dispositive motion that has been referred to the

Magistrate Judge for determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)

and Local Rules 72-302(c)(1) and 72-303.

The notice of motion and motion of Charles L. Doerksen to

withdraw as attorney of record for Plaintiff Shaukat “Sal”

Maredia was filed on February 2, 2006, along with a declaration

Case 1:05-cv-00393-OWW -SMS Document 57 Filed 03/02/06 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

2

of Charles L. Doerksen and a memorandum in support of the motion.

Proof of service indicates that the documents were served by mail

and by facsimile transmission on February 2, 2006, on Plaintiff

Maredia at the address and telephone number that counsel

identifies in his declaration as belonging to Plaintiff. On

February 23, 2006, Defendant Philip Morris USA Inc. filed nonopposition to the motion to withdraw. The hearing on the motion

was originally set for March 17, 2006; however, the hearing was

vacated, and the motion was submitted on the pleadings. 

I. Background

This action was removed to this Court on March 24, 2005.

Discovery is proceeding and is due to be completed by September

29, 2006. Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to

interrogatories and requests for production and for sanctions and

notice thereof is set to be heard on March 24, 2006. 

II. The Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record 

Attorney Charles L. Doerksen, the moving party, declares

that in addition to the mail and facsimile service of the motion

and supporting papers on Plaintiff on February 2, 2006, Doerksen

also spoke with Plaintiff by telephone that day and informed him

of the motion and of the date set for hearing. Further, after

undisclosed issues arose between counsel and his client over the

month preceding the filing of the motion, Doerksen asked

Plaintiff if he could withdraw, and Plaintiff agreed. Doerksen

has submitted a copy of a substitution of attorney form that

Plaintiff Maredia signed and dated January 26, 2006. The

complaint attached to the notice of removal indicates that

Plaintiff Maredia is an adult individual, and the other named

Case 1:05-cv-00393-OWW -SMS Document 57 Filed 03/02/06 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

3

Plaintiff, Cigarette King, constitutes tobacco stores owned by

Plaintiff Maredia.

The grounds of the motion are the mutual consent of the

party and the moving attorney.

Local Rule 83-182 provides that an attorney may request

withdrawal if grounds exist pursuant to the Rules of Professional

Conduct of the State Bar of California. Rule 3-700(C)(5) of those

rules permits withdrawal if the client knowingly and freely

assents to termination of the employment. Here, the client’s

consent is established by counsel’s declaration that the client

consented, and the lack of any opposition to the motion by

Defendants.

Good cause having been shown, and in view of the lack of

opposition to the motion, the motion of Charles L. Doerksen to

withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs IS GRANTED.

III. Direction to the Clerk of the Court to Update

 the Docket to Reflect Plaintiff’s Pro Se Status

and Address

Further, because the withdrawal of counsel results in

Plaintiff’s proceeding pro se in this action, the Clerk of Court

IS DIRECTED TO UPDATE the docket to reflect Plaintiff’s pro se

status and Plaintiff’s last known address of 13200 Seann Court,

Bakersfield, California 93314, telephone (661) 304-2790, Fax

(661) 206-6062.

IV. Informational Order to Plaintiff re: Compliance with

 the Scheduling Order and the Local Rules

Plaintiff is advised that failure to take appropriate legal

action may result in serious legal consequences, and

consideration of obtaining legal assistance is strongly advised.

Case 1:05-cv-00393-OWW -SMS Document 57 Filed 03/02/06 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

4

Plaintiff is further advised that regardless of whether or

not Plaintiff is represented by counsel, Plaintiff will be

expected to comply with all the requirements and deadlines stated

in the Court’s scheduling order of November 14, 2005. As a party

appearing in propria persona, Plaintiff is also required by Local

Rule 83-182(f) to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any

change of address or telephone number.

A failure to comply with an order of the Court may result in

a recommendation that the action be dismissed or other sanctions.

Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00393-OWW -SMS Document 57 Filed 03/02/06 Page 4 of 4