Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00504/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00504-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 - 10CV0504

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRUMAINE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10CV0504-LAB (NLS)

ORDER RELIEVING PLAINTIFF’S

vs. COUNSEL

UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendants.

Mary Prevost, counsel for Plaintiff Trumaine Johnson, has asked the Court to relieve

her as counsel on two grounds: (1) Johnson has failed to communicate and cooperate with

her throughout this case, and (2) Johnson has not covered the costs of bringing this case,

in violation of an attorney-client agreement. Prevost represents that there has been a total

breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. 

The Court’s Local Rule 83.3(g)(3) allows for an attorney of record to withdraw from

a case if she serves notice to the adverse party and her own client and proves that such

service was effective. Ms. Prevost has satisfied those requirements. This Court also looks

to California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d) and (f), which allows for attorney

withdrawal when a client “renders it unreasonably difficult for the [attorney] to carry out the

employment effectively” or “breaches an agreement or obligation . . . as to expenses or

fees.” The Court finds, based on Ms. Prevost’s memorandum and declaration, that both of

Case 3:10-cv-00504-LAB-NLS Document 27 Filed 03/18/11 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 - 10CV0504

these conditions are satisfied. See Hammond v. T.J. Litle and Co., Inc., 809 F.Supp. 156,

159 (D. Mass. 1992) (“The professional relationship, as well as the decision to dissolve it,

must be guided, and in some instances governed by, the court’s rules of professional

conduct and by the cannons and rules of the legal profession applicable to members of the

Bar admitted to practice before the court.”).

While a motion to dismiss is still pending in this case, the Court does not find that

Johnson would be prejudiced by Ms. Prevost’s withdrawal. The motion was taken under

submission on the papers and there is nothing for Ms. Prevost to do at this point. The Court

has begun to consider the motion, but, realistically, is at least a few weeks away from issuing

a written opinion. Ms. Prevost’s motion to withdraw is therefore GRANTED, but her

withdrawal will only become effective upon the proof of service of this Order upon her client.

Ms. Prevost’s declaration leaves the Court with the impression that Mr. Johnson has

no interest in continuing to pursue this case. He is aware of her intent to withdraw and has

since stopped responding to any of her communications. Mr. Johnson will therefore have

21 days from the date this Ms. Prevost files proof of service of this Order to obtain new

counsel and/or inform the Court that he intends to proceed pro se. If the Court does not

hear from Mr. Johnson within this 21-day period, it will dismiss this case with prejudice. The

Court will stay its consideration of the pending motion to dismiss in the interim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 15, 2011

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00504-LAB-NLS Document 27 Filed 03/18/11 Page 2 of 2