Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01484/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01484-34/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I. Background 

At a settlement conference in October, 2016, counsel agreed in principle to settle this matter. 

(Doc. 82) However, settlement was contingent upon agreement by all named plaintiffs. Id. However, 

Plaintiffs’ counsel had not had contact with several of the named plaintiffs for years. (Doc. 91 at 2) 

As to two of these absent plaintiffs, the Court has granted the request of attorney, Mark Ravis, to 

withdraw from their representation. (Doc. 100) Now, Mr. Ravis seeks to withdraw from the 

representation of Jimmy Flores, Reynaldo Cormona and Matthew Richards. (Doc. 118 at 1-2) Mr. 

Ravis reports that he has spent six months trying to contact them but has received no response from 

letter sent to their last known addresses. Id. at 2.

II. Legal Standards for Withdrawal of Counsel

Withdrawal of counsel is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of 

DUBRIN et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

MICHAEL STAINER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01484 DAD JLT 

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST OF ATTORNEY 

MARK RAVIS TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL 

FO RECORD FOR JIMMY FLORES, REYNALDO 

CORMONA AND MATTHEW RICHARDS

(Doc. 118)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO PLAINTIFFS 

FLORES, CORMONA AND RICHARDS WHY 

THE MATTER SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR THEIR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE THE 

ACTION

Case 1:11-cv-01484-DAD-JLT Document 119 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 3
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

California and the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. See 

LR 182. Withdrawal is permitted under the Rules of Professional Conduct if a client “renders it 

unreasonably difficult for the member to carry our employment effectively.” Cal. R.P.C. 3-

700(C)(1)(d). Local Rule 182(d) 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 addresses of the client and the 

efforts made to notify the client of the motion to withdraw. 

Id. Likewise, California’s Rules require the moving attorney to serve notice of motion and the 

declaration and other parties who have appeared in the case. CRC 3.1362(d). 

The decision to grant withdrawal is within the discretion of the Court, and withdrawal “may be 

granted subject to such appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit.” LR 182; see Canandaigua Wine 

Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, 2009 WL 989141, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2009) (“The decision to grant or deny 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial court.”). Factors the Court may 

consider include: (1) the reasons for withdrawal, (2) prejudice that may be caused to the other litigants, 

(3) harm caused to the administration of justice; and (4) delay to the resolution of the case caused by 

withdrawal. Canandaigua Wine Co., 2009 WL 989141, at *1-2

III. Discussion and Analysis

Mr. Ravis’ declaration demonstrates that the attorney-client relationship has broken down such 

that he has no option but to withdraw. (Doc. 118 at3) Mr. Ravis has had no contact with Mr. Flores, 

Mr. Richards or Mr. Cormona for some time and he has spent six months trying to locate them. Id. 

These efforts have failed. Id. Because these plaintiffs have failed to maintain contact with their lawyer, 

it appears that they have abandoned this litigation.

IV. Conclusion and Order

Mr. Ravis has set forth sufficient reasons for the withdrawal. Therefore, the Court is acting 

within its discretion to grant the motion to withdraw.1 See LR 182. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED:

 

1 Because Mr. Ravis has sent mail to the last known addresses for Plaintiffs Flores, Carmona and Richards, further notice 

of this motion would be useless.

Case 1:11-cv-01484-DAD-JLT Document 119 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 of 3
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

1. The motion to withdraw (Doc. 118) is GRANTED;

2. The Clerk’s Office SHALL TERMINATE Mark Ravis as counsel of record for 

Plaintiffs Jimmy Flores, Reynaldo Cormona and Matthew Richards, and update the docket to reflect 

these Plaintiffs’ self-represented status and their last last known addresses as follows:

1. Reynaldo Carmona (CDCR No. G 36743)

80785 Brown St.

Indio, CA 92201-4962

2. Matthew Richards

Booking No. 1511340648

Adelanto Detention Center

9438 Commerce Way

Adelanto, CA 92301

Matthew Richards

6689 Catawba Avenue

Fontana, CA 92336

3. Jimmy Flores

11215 State Street,

Glenwood, CA 90362

3. Within 21 days, Plaintiffs Reynaldo Cormona, Matthew Richards and Jimmy Flores 

SHALL show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for their apparent 

abandonment of this action and their failure to prosecute it.

These Plaintiffs are advised that their failure to appear in this action and to comply with 

any order of the Court may result in the action being dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01484-DAD-JLT Document 119 Filed 04/05/16 Page 3 of 3