Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00048/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00048-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

Defendants are Chugach Management, Inc., Mel Lynch, Lori Frost, Mike Cowart, Rick Tate and Toby 1

Cowart and will be referred to collectively as “defendants.”

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH DE FELICE, et al., CASE NO. CV F 06-0048 AWI LJO

Plaintiffs, ORDER ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS

COUNSEL AND TO SET SCHEDULING

vs. CONFERENCE

(Docs. 28-35.)

CHUGACH MAINTENANCE SERVICES,

et al., Date: February 21, 2007

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Defendants. Dept.: 8 (LJO)

 /

INTRODUCTION

In this wrongful employment termination action, Kenneth Satin and his law firm The Accident

Attorneys, P.L.C. (collectively “Mr. Satin”) seek to withdraw as counsel for plaintiffs Alexi Zuniga,

Joseph DeFelice, Jackie Malcomb and James Mamulu (collectively “plaintiffs”) on grounds, among

others, of irretrievable breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. This Court conducted a December

8, 2006 hearing on Mr. Satin’s motion to withdraw. Mr. Satin appeared by telephone for himself.

Plaintiffs Alexi Zuniga and Jackie Malcomb appeared by telephone for themselves. Defendants1

appeared by telephone by counsel Mark E. Terman and Pascal Benyamini, Reish, Luftman, Reicher &

Cohen. Defendants do not oppose Mr. Satin’s withdrawal, and plaintiffs filed no timely papers to

oppose Mr. Satin’s withdrawal motion.

Case 1:06-cv-00048-AWI-GSA Document 40 Filed 12/08/06 Page 1 of 7
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

Mr. Satin notes that revealing supporting facts would disclose “client confidences” but that Mr. Satin 2

“represents and certifies to the court that adequate grounds for withdrawal exist[] under one [or] more of the grounds specified

in the California Code of Professional Responsibility.”

2

For the reasons discussed below, this Court:

1. GRANTS Mr. Satin’s motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiffs; 

2. ORDERS Mr. Satin to provide plaintiffs all papers and property to which plaintiffs are

entitled, to assist plaintiffs in transition to new counsel or to represent themselves, and

to comply with other applicable laws and rules; and

3. SETS a scheduling conference for February 21, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 8 (LJO)

of this Court. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs’ Claims

On April 14, 2005, plaintiffs filed their Kern County Superior Court action to allege against

defendants claims of employment termination and retaliation and fraud. On January 13, 2006,

defendants removed plaintiffs’ action to this Court. After defense challenges to plaintiffs’ original

complaint, plaintiffs proceed on their first amended complaint, to which defendants filed a May 15, 2006

answer. Mr. Satin apparently attempted to persuade plaintiffsto replace him with new counsel, and this

Court monitored such progress to culminate in a September 26, 2006 status conference at which Mr.

Satin committed to continue to represent plaintiffs, and this Court set an October 31, 2006 scheduling

conference. After informing defense counsel and this Court that he was unable to continue to represent

plaintiffs, Mr. Satin filed his papers to withdraw as plaintiffs’ counsel on October 27, 2006. This Court

vacated the October 31, 2006 scheduling conference, and discovery, motion and trial dates have not been

set. Apparently, the parties have not made F.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) initial disclosures.

Grounds For Withdrawal

In his papers, Mr. Satin enumerates many grounds for withdrawal and including:

1. “[S]erious unresolvable disagreements as to how to proceed which as led to the complete

breakdown of the attorney-client relationship” and plaintiffs attempt to “influence the

courses of action” that Mr. Satin should follow;2

Case 1:06-cv-00048-AWI-GSA Document 40 Filed 12/08/06 Page 2 of 7
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

2. Mr. Satin did not anticipate removal to this Court and lacks experience and competence

with federal litigation, procedure, law and court rules;

3. Plaintiffs would be better served by an attorney “well versed in federal practice”;

4. Despite during the past year Mr. Satin’s numerous explanations ofinabilityto handle this

action and requests, plaintiffs continue to refuse to secure other counsel and to permit

Mr. Satin’s withdrawal “absent certain conditions which cannot be revealed without

violating client confidences”;

5. There is abundant time to secure new counsel given the absence of discovery, motion and

trial dates;

6. Mr. Satin should not be responsible “to reveal crucial evidence” in F.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)

initial disclosures to new counsel’s detriment;

7. Denial of withdrawal would force Mr. Satin to violate ethical responsibilities;

8. Mr. Satin’s “health conditions” and “sudden private circumstances” have required Mr.

Satin to shut down his law office, lay off staff and refer most of his cases to other

attorneys;

9. Mr. Satin does not want to endure the stress of this case and logistic difficulties arising

from his Southern California location; and

10. Defendants do not oppose Mr. Satin’s withdrawal, which will not prejudice them.

Service Of Withdrawal Motion Papers

Mr. Satin notes that on October 26, 2006, he served his withdrawal motion papers by first class

mail on each plaintiff at his/her last known addresses and included a “Please Forward” legend in bold

letters on the envelopes. Mr. Satin further noted that plaintiff Alexi Zuniga (“Mr. Zuniga”) has

represented himself as “spokesman” for the other plaintiffs and that service of the withdrawal motion

papers on Mr. Zuniga will ensure that the other plaintiffs are notified. According to Mr. Satin, the

plaintiffs’ mailing addresses are valid in that no prior correspondence has been returned. For further

assurance, Mr. Satin mailed an additional set of his withdrawal motion papers to secondary addresses

of three plaintiffs. Mr. Satin further indicates that his assistant telephoned three plaintiffsto verify their

addresses and that the fourth plaintiff sent a recent letter showing his “primary” address to which Mr.

Case 1:06-cv-00048-AWI-GSA Document 40 Filed 12/08/06 Page 3 of 7
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

Satin mailed his withdrawal motion papers. Plaintiffs filed no timely papers to oppose Mr. Satin’s

withdrawal. 

DISCUSSION

This Court’s Local Rule 83-182(d) addresses attorney withdrawal and provides in pertinent part:

. . . an attorney who has appeared may not withdraw leaving the client in propria persona

without leave of Court upon noticed motion and written 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 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.

California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-700(C) addresses permissive withdrawal and

states in pertinent part:

. . . a member may not request permission to withdraw in matters pending before a

tribunal . . . unless such request or such withdrawal is because:

(1) The client

(a) insists upon presenting a claim or defense that is not warranted under existing

law and cannot be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or

reversal of existing law, or

. . .

(c) insists that the [attorney] pursue a course of conduct that is illegal or that is

prohibited under these rules or the State Bar Act, or

(d) by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the [attorney] to carry

out the employment effectively . . .

(2) The continued employment is likely to result in a violation of these rules or of the

State Bar Act; or

. . .

(4) The [attorney’s] mental or physical condition rendersit difficult for the [attorney] to

carry out the employment effectively; or

. . .

(6) The [attorney] believes in good faith . . . that the tribunal will find the existence of

other good cause for withdrawal.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 284 allows an attorney to be “changed at any time

before or after judgment” upon “consent of both the client and attorney” or “order of the court” upon

Case 1:06-cv-00048-AWI-GSA Document 40 Filed 12/08/06 Page 4 of 7
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

notice to the client. “The question of granting or denying an application of an attorney to withdraw as

counsel . . . is one which lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ‘having in mind whether such

withdrawal might work an injustice in the handling of the case.’” People v. Prince, 268 Cal.App.2d 398,

403-404, 74 Cal.Rptr. 197, 202-203 (1968) (citations omitted); see Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court,

66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 494, 497 (1998) (“The determination whether to grant or

deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies within a trial court’s sound discretion.”); People v. Brown,

203 Cal.App.3d 1335, 1340, 250 Cal.Rptr. 762 (1988); see The Statute of Liberty – Ellis Island

Foundation, Inc. v. International United Industries, Inc., 110 F.R.D. 395, 397 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (granting

withdrawal because client failed to cooperate and pay legal expenses). “The office of attorney is one

of the very highest confidence and when the client suspects and questions the good faith of his attorney

the attorney should be permitted to withdraw from the case unless some very compelling reason exists

for forcing him to continue with the ungrateful task.” Helpe v. Kluge, 104 Cal.App.2d 461, 462, 231

P.2d 505 (1951).

Moreover, in In re Woodcock, 100 B.R. 520 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1989), the Bankruptcy Court of

this Eastern District of California addressed attorney withdrawal under Local Rule 182(b), the

predecessor to current Local Rule 83-182(d). The bankruptcy court noted that this Court’s Local Rules

“define the methods for making an appearance and the terms and conditions of withdrawal” and that

withdrawals leaving a client unrepresented are governed by Local Rule 182(b) (current Local Rule 83-

182(d)). Woodcock, 100 B.R. at 522. The bankruptcy court explained:

Thus, counsel . . . may withdraw only if there is either (1) a substitution of a new counsel

. . . or (2) a court order authorizing withdrawal, which order must be on motion noticed

to the client and all other parties who have appeared and which is subject to the further

requirement that counsel has taken reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the

rights of the client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for

employment of other counsel, delivering to the client all papers and property to which

the client is entitled, and complying with any other applicable laws and rules. 

Woodcock, 100 B.R. at 523.

Here, Mr. Satin seeks to withdraw primarily based on what he characterizes as an unsalvageable

breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and hisinability to litigate in federal court. At the hearing,

Mr. Zuniga confirmed the breakdown in the relationship between plaintiffs and Mr. Satin. Mr. Satin has

made sufficient attempts to notify plaintiffs of his withdrawal motion, and there is no reason to believe

Case 1:06-cv-00048-AWI-GSA Document 40 Filed 12/08/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

that they did not receive notice given that two of them appeared at the hearing. Plaintiffs fail to

challenge Mr. Satin’s withdrawal or its grounds and appear to have issues with Mr. Satin beyond the

grounds for his withdrawal. According to Mr. Satin, plaintiffs have refused his requests to seek other

counsel although he explained to them his inability to represent them in federal court. Defendants do

not oppose Mr. Satin’s withdrawal, and no prejudice appears from Mr. Satin’s withdrawal given that no

discovery, motion or trial dates are set. On withdrawal, Mr. Satin is expected to provide plaintiffs all

papers and property to which they are entitled, to assist plaintiffs in transition to new counsel or to

represent themselves, and to comply with other applicable laws and rules.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court:

1. GRANTS Mr. Satin’s motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiffs;

2. ORDERS Mr. Satin to provide plaintiffs all papers and property to which plaintiffs are

entitled, to assist plaintiffs in transition to new counsel or to represent themselves, and

to comply with other applicable laws and rules; 

3. SETS a scheduling conference for February 21, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 8 (LJO)

of this Court. The parties are encouraged to appear at the mandatory scheduling

conference by telephone by arranging a one-line conference call and then adding the

Court at (559) 499-5680;

4. ORDERS the parties, no later than February 14, 2007, to file a Joint Scheduling Report

which includes the information required by Exhibit A to the January 13, 2006 order

setting the original scheduling conference and to e-mail a copy of the Joint Scheduling

Report as an attachment to ljoorders@caed.uscourts.gov and formatted in WordPerfect

or Word; 

5. ORDERS the parties to otherwise comply with this Court’s orders; and

6. DIRECTS this Court’s clerk to serve a copy of this order on plaintiffs as follows:

Alexi Zuniga

3341 Wesson Road

Rapid City, SD 57703

Case 1:06-cv-00048-AWI-GSA Document 40 Filed 12/08/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

Alexi Zuniga

624 Rushworth

Edwards, CA 93523

Jackie Malcomb

3341 Wesson Road

Rapid City, SD 57703

Jackie Malcomb

3120 “E” Avenue, H-4

Lancaster, CA 93535

James Mamula

3341 Wesson Road

Rapid City, SD 57703

James Mammula

8012 Hemlock Street

California City, CA 93505

Joseph De Felice

60600 151 East st

Lancaster, CA 93535

Joseph De Felice

3341 Wesson Road

Rapid City, SD 57703.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00048-AWI-GSA Document 40 Filed 12/08/06 Page 7 of 7