Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01446/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01446-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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 This matter is deemed to be suitable for decision without oral *

argument. E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT N. JOHNSON, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 2:08-cv-01446-GEB-GGH

)

v. ) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

) DENYING IN PART DEFENSE 

GHODRAT SOLTANI, Individually and ) COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW

d/b/a South Japanese Motors, KAMYAR) AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD*

SOLTANI, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On March 5, 2010, Defendants’ Counsel Cris C. Vaughan 

(“Vaughan”), filed a motion to withdraw as attorney of record for

Defendants based on two documents Defendant Ghodrat Soltani

(“Ghodrat”) filed with the Court on February 25, 2010, and March 1,

2010. Vaughan argues these documents show that “Defendants have now

expressed their desire to represent themselves in this case” and

therefore, under Eastern District of California Local Rule (“Local

Rule”) 182(d) and California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(5),

Vaughan should be permitted to withdraw as counsel since Defendants

have “knowingly and freely assent[ed] to termination of [Vaughan’s]

employment.” (Mot. 2:10-13.)

Vaughan’s motion is GRANTED as to Ghodrat since Ghodrat

signed a letter filed February 24, 2010, in which Ghodrat states:

“Vaughan is no longer my attorney for the above-referenced case

Case 2:08-cv-01446-GEB-GGH Document 24 Filed 04/02/10 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

because his services are no longer needed. Therefore I will be

representing myself.” (Docket No. 14.) 

However, Vaughan’s motion to withdraw as counsel for

Defendant Kamyar Soltani (“Kamyar”) is DENIED, since Vaughan has not

explained why he should be allowed to withdraw as counsel for Kamyar,

who was not party to either document Ghodrat filed. Further, Local

Rule 182(d) requires Vaughan to “provide an affidavit stating the

current or last known address . . . of the client and the efforts made

to notify the client of the motion to withdraw.” E.D. Cal. R.

182(d)(emphasis added). Vaughan has not explained his attempts to

notify Kamyar of his motion, nor has he provided Kamyar’s address. 

Kamyar’s last known address is particularly important since the final

pretrial conference is scheduled for April 19, 2010, and a joint

pretrial statement is due seven days before the final pretrial

conference. 

Since the attorney representation issue has surfaced close 

to the final pretrial conference date, and it appears that date should

be rescheduled, the final pretrial conference is continued to June 7,

2010, at 11:00 a.m. Trial is still scheduled to commence on July 20,

2010, at 9:00 a.m. Further, the hearing on the motion scheduled for

April 5, 2010, at 9:00 a.m., is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:08-cv-01446-GEB-GGH Document 24 Filed 04/02/10 Page 2 of 2