Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02674/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02674-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JESSE JAMES THOMAS, III and 

TIFFANY F. THOMAS, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

EXPERIAN INFORMATION 

SOLUTIONS, INC., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-02674-MCE-CKD 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

Plaintiffs Jesse James Thomas, III and Tiffany F. Thomas (collectively “Plaintiffs”) 

filed this Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) case through counsel Mark F. Anderson 

(“Anderson”) against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”); Trans Union LLC 

(“Trans Union”); and Equifax Information Services LLC (“Equifax”). On May 14, 2014, 

the Court dismissed with prejudice all claims against Trans Union and Equifax; 

accordingly, Experian is the sole remaining defendant in the case. Presently before the 

Court is Anderson’s unopposed Motion to Withdraw (“Motion”) as counsel for Plaintiffs. 

ECF No. 28. For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.1

/// 

 1

 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter 

submitted on the briefs. See E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(g); ECF No. 38. 

Case 2:13-cv-02674-MCE-CKD Document 39 Filed 12/23/14 Page 1 of 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 

2

STANDARD 

In this district, “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.” E.D. Cal. Local R. 182(d). Counsel “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. In addition, 

“[w]ithdrawal as attorney is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State 

Bar of California.” Id. California’s Rules of Professional Conduct provide a number of 

permissive grounds for withdrawal, including where the client insists upon presenting an 

unwarranted claim or defense or “renders it unreasonably difficult” for counsel to carry 

out his employment effectively. Cal. Rule of Prof’l Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(a), (d). Whether 

to grant leave to withdraw is subject to the sound discretion of the Court and “may be 

granted subject to such appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit.” E.D. Cal. Local 

R. 182(d); Canandaigua Wine Co. v. Moldauer, 2009 WL 89141, *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 

2009). 

ANALYSIS 

In his Motion and accompanying declaration, Anderson explains that he is 

experienced with FCRA cases and has filed over eighty such actions on behalf of 

consumers like Plaintiffs in the last three years alone. ECF No. 30; ECF No. 29 ¶ 7. 

Based on his experience, documents produced in discovery, and the law governing this 

case, Anderson has “concluded that continuing to litigate [the FCRA claim] is not 

warranted by existing law and cannot be supported by a good faith argument for an 

extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.” ECF No. 29 ¶ 8; ECF No. 30. More 

specifically, Anderson describes that Plaintiffs “believe Experian is unquestionably liable 

for damages,” while Anderson “believe[s] liability is a serious issue,” and that Plaintiffs 

Case 2:13-cv-02674-MCE-CKD Document 39 Filed 12/23/14 Page 2 of 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 

3

“believe the settlement value of the case and the expected verdict following trial . . . is 

vastly greater” than what Anderson would expect as a result of settlement or a jury 

award. Id. These disagreements have resulted in Plaintiffs “ignoring” Anderson’s advice 

and refusing to authorize a dismissal of this action, which leads Anderson to believe he 

“cannot successfully continue to represent [Plaintiffs].” Id. ¶ 6; ECF No. 30. Based on 

Anderson’s averments, which were made under the penalty of perjury and have not 

been rebutted, the Court finds that the conditions referred to in subsections (C)(1)(a) and 

(C)(1)(d) of California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700 are present here. Therefore, 

permissive withdrawal is proper if Anderson has complied with Local Rule 182(d). In that 

regard, the Court finds that Anderson has in fact complied with Rule 182(d). He properly 

noticed the Motion, which was served on Experian. Moreover, Anderson provided within 

his declaration Plaintiffs’ current or last known address, ECF No. 29 ¶ 11, and indicated 

he provided Plaintiffs with the Motion through electronic and traditional mail, id. ¶ 12. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that good cause exists for Anderson’s 

withdrawal. Accordingly: 

1. The Motion to Withdraw, ECF No. 28, is GRANTED. 

2. Mark F. Anderson of Anderson, Ogilvie & Brewer LLP, is RELIEVED as 

counsel for Plaintiffs. 

3. The Clerk of the Court shall SERVE a copy of this Memorandum and Order 

on Plaintiffs at P.O. Box 4392, Citrus Heights, California 95611-4392. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 22, 2014 

Case 2:13-cv-02674-MCE-CKD Document 39 Filed 12/23/14 Page 3 of 3