Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02441/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02441-34/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)

---

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 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA; and CITY OF LODI,

CALIFORNIA,

NO. CIV. 00-2441 FCD/JFM

PlaintiffS,

v. ORDER GRANTING WITHDRAWAL AS

COUNSEL

M & P INVESTMENTS, a

California partnership in

dissolution; et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on a motion to withdraw as

counsel of record brought by Michele K. Trausch and Eli R. Makus

of the law firm Hanson Bridgett Marcus Vlahos & Rudy LLP (“Hanson

Bridgett”).1

 Hanson Bridgett represents defendants and third

party defendants Peter P. Bollinger Investment Co., a California

limited partnership; Michael J. Bollinger, as Trustee of the

Peter P. Bollinger Irrevocable Living Trust Agreement No. One

Case 2:00-cv-02441-FCD-KJM Document 2925 Filed 10/23/07 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

dated January 18, 1980 and the Peter P. Bollinger ten year GRIT;

and Peter P. Bollinger, an individual (collectively,

“Bollinger”). 

This complex and protracted action is based on the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9601, et seq. The Hanson Bridgett attorney

primarily responsible for handling this litigation for Bollinger

and the primary contact with Bollinger was former Hanson Bridgett

partner, Michael L.F. Buck. Mr. Buck withdrew from the Hanson

Bridgett partnership in 2007 and has severed all ties with the

firm. Hanson Bridgett maintains that Bollinger has failed to

communicate with other attorneys at the firm, has failed to sign

a substitution of attorneys, and has failed to pay amounts owed

by it to Hanson Bridgett. For these reasons, Hanson Bridgett

asserts that it can no longer effectively represent Bollinger,

and, on that basis, requests permission to withdraw as counsel of

record.

Local Rule 83-182(d) states the following:

Subject to the provisions of subsection (c),

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. 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. 

Case 2:00-cv-02441-FCD-KJM Document 2925 Filed 10/23/07 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

2 See Trausch Decl., filed Sept. 17, 2007 [Docket #2914]

(describing defense counsels’ attempts to communicate with

Bollinger, as well as each individual clients’ relevant

addresses).

3

Hanson Bridgett has complied with the requirements of the local

rule by providing prior notice to Bollinger of its intent to

cease representation of it and has provided Bollinger with a copy

of this motion.2

In California, an attorney may withdraw as counsel of record

if a client’s conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the

attorney to represent the client effectively. Cal. R. Prof. C.

3-700(C)(1)(d); See Ferruzzo v. Superior Court, 104 Cal. App. 3d

501, 504 (1980) (holding that an attorney may be able to withdraw

as counsel of record for an uncooperative corporate client

“without offending the rule against corporate selfrepresentation”). Bollinger’s refusal to communicate with its

counsel of record, despite counsels’ several attempts, makes it

unreasonably difficult for Hanson Bridgett to represent Bollinger

effectively.

Moreover, California Rule of Professional Conduct 

3-700(C)(f) provides that an attorney may request permission to

withdraw if the client “breaches an agreement or obligation to

the member as to expenses or fees.” See Liberty-Ellis Island

Foundation, Inc. v. International United Industries, Inc., 110

F.R.D. 395, 397 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (holding that the failure to pay

attorneys’ fees may be grounds for withdrawal). Hanson Bridgett

explains that defendant has not paid for an unspecified amount of

fees. Without more, this alone would likely be insufficient

grounds for withdrawal, but coupled with Bollinger’s other

Case 2:00-cv-02441-FCD-KJM Document 2925 Filed 10/23/07 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

failures, this fact favors permitting withdrawal.

Finally, in California, withdrawal is proper when the

client’s interest will not be unduly prejudiced or delayed. 

Ramirez v. Sturdevant, 21 Cal. App. 4th 904, 915-16 (1994). 

Here, Bollinger will not suffer injustice or delay if Hanson

Bridgett is permitted to withdraw. The trial has been continued

to October 7, 2008 and the next pretrial deadline, disclosure of

expert witnesses, is set for January 2008. Bollinger has

sufficient time to retain substitute counsel, should it wish to,

and for that lawyer to become familiar with the case and relevant

issues.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:00-cv-02441-FCD-KJM Document 2925 Filed 10/23/07 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

3 See Trausch Decl. at ¶ 6 (referring to Peter Bollinger

as “Paul” Bollinger) (the court assumes counsel’s reference was

to Peter P. Bollinger, the named individual defendant).

5

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Hansen

Bridgett’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record is GRANTED. 

Michael J. Bollinger, as Trustee of the Peter P. Bollinger

Irrevocable Living Trust Agreement No. One dated January 18, 1980

and the Peter P. Bollinger ten year GRIT, and Peter P. Bollinger,

as an individual, shall appear in the above entitled case pro

per. Defendant Peter P. Bollinger Investment Co., a California

limited partnership, however, may not appear in this case without

counsel. E.D. Cal. L.R. 83-183(a). The Clerk of the Court is

directed to add Mr. Peter P. Bollinger to the service list, as he

is the authorized representative of each of the defendants that

Hanson Bridget currently represents;3

 his address is 540 Fulton

Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95825. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 22, 2007

Case 2:00-cv-02441-FCD-KJM Document 2925 Filed 10/23/07 Page 5 of 5