Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05990/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05990-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims 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

BARNETT S. SALZMAN, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1: 01-CV-05990-REC-SMS

ORDER GRANTING FIRST AMENDED

MOTION OF PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL TO

WITHDRAW AS PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL

(DOC. 68)

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO

UPDATE THE DOCKET TO REFLECT

PLAINTIFF’S PRO SE STATUS AND

ADDRESS

INFORMATIONAL ORDER TO PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff is proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(1) and 72-303.

Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on August 2, 2001.

Plaintiff’s first claim was a qui tam claim under the California

and federal false claims statutes; the State of California did

not intervene, and the claim was settled on January 28, 2005, as

reflected in a joint stipulation of dismissal filed in this

Court. Plaintiff’s remaining claim is for damages for retaliation

and discrimination by Defendant County of Fresno for Plaintiff’s

Case 1:01-cv-05990-REC -SMS Document 71 Filed 05/18/05 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

whistle blowing. The case was partially unsealed on February 9,

2005. Attorney Donald R. Warren declares that the Defendants have

not been served and have not appeared; service of process on

Defendants is due on June 7, 2005.

The Court has reviewed the first amended motion to withdraw

as attorney filed by Donald R. Warren and Phillip E. Benson,

Plaintiff’s attorneys, on April 20, 2005, and served by mail upon

Plaintiff. The motion includes a declaration of attorney Warren.

Plaintiff has not filed any opposition or other response to the

motion. By separate order, the Court has vacated the hearing on

the motion.

Attorney Warren declares that on April 14, 2005, Plaintiff

Salzman was notified in writing of the decision to withdraw and

of the bringing of this motion. He was further informed that he

should retain new counsel or pursue the case on his own, and he

was advised of the time within which the complaint must be served

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Warren also declares that he is

going to return the case file to Salzman. Salzman’s address and

telephone number are stated in the moving papers.

I. Motion to Withdraw

The grounds of the motion are a complete breakdown in the

attorney-client relationship. Warren declares that such a

breakdown has occurred and that the contract regarding attorney’s

services and fees provides that attorneys have the right to

withdraw from representation.

Local Rule 83-182(d) provides that 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

Case 1:01-cv-05990-REC -SMS Document 71 Filed 05/18/05 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

3

client and all other parties who have appeared. Further, it

requires that the attorney 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.

Here, Plaintiff’s address is stated in the moving papers. Local

Rule 83-182 further states that withdrawal of the attorney is

governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of

California, and that the attorney shall conform to the

requirements of those Rules. 

Local Rule 83-182 provides that an attorney may request

withdrawal if grounds exist pursuant to the Rules of Professional

Conduct of the State Bar of California. Rule of Professional

Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d) permits withdrawal if the client by his or

her conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to

carry out the employment effectively; Rule 3-700(C)(6) permits

withdrawal if the member believes in good faith in a proceeding

pending before a tribunal that the tribunal will find he

existence of good cause for withdrawal. Rule 3-700(A) provides in

substance that a member must obtain permission to withdraw if

rules of a tribunal require it; a member shall not withdraw from

employment until the member has taken reasonable steps to avoid

reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client,

including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for

employment of other counsel, promptly releasing papers and

property, and complying with applicable laws and rules.

Here, Warren has established the breakdown in the attorneyclient relationship; thus, grounds for withdrawal exist. He has

notified the client of the deadlines and the instant motion in

Case 1:01-cv-05990-REC -SMS Document 71 Filed 05/18/05 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

writing. Further, a proof of service shows that the motion and

declaration were served on April 20, 2005, on Plaintiff at the

address given. Warren has provided the address and telephone

number of the client. He has stated that the file was being

delivered to Plaintiff.

Although the deadline for service is approaching, Plaintiff

has had ample time to seek counsel or to prepare to serve

Defendants. Plaintiff has not indicated that he has experienced

any difficulty with effecting service or locating other counsel.

The moving attorneys having shown grounds for withdrawal and

having complied with the applicable rules, the motion of

attorneys Donald R. Warren and Phillip E. Benson to withdraw as

attorneys for Plaintiff IS GRANTED.

II. Updating the Docket

Because the withdrawal of counsel results in Plaintiff’s

proceeding pro se in this action, the Clerk of Court IS DIRECTED

TO UPDATE the docket to reflect Plaintiff’s pro se status; his

last known address of 3222 West Menlo Avenue, Fresno, California

93711; and his telephone number of (559) 448-0314.

III. Informational Order to Plaintiff

Plaintiff IS INFORMED that failure to take appropriate legal

action may result in serious legal consequences, and

consideration of obtaining legal assistance is strongly advised.

Plaintiff is further advised that regardless of whether or

not Plaintiff is represented by counsel, Plaintiff will be

expected to comply with all the requirements and deadlines stated

in the Court’s scheduling order of August 2, 2001, and the

pertinent Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Plaintiff must

Case 1:01-cv-05990-REC -SMS Document 71 Filed 05/18/05 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

5

effectuate service upon the Defendants no later than June 7,

2005. As a party appearing in propria persona, Plaintiff is also

required by Local Rule 83-183(b) to notify the Clerk and all

other parties of any change of address or telephone number.

A failure to comply with an order of the Court may result in

a recommendation that the action be dismissed or in other

sanctions. Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05990-REC -SMS Document 71 Filed 05/18/05 Page 5 of 5