Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01933/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01933-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DIANTAE HOGAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-01933-KJM-KJN 

ORDER 

This matter is before the court on a motion to withdraw as attorney by counsel for 

plaintiff Diantae Hogan. Mot., ECF No. 13. The motion is unopposed. As explained below, the 

motion is GRANTED. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

The local rules of this district require an attorney who would withdraw and leave 

his or her client without representation to obtain leave of the court upon a noticed motion. E.D. 

Cal. L.R. 182(d). Local Rule 182(d) also requires an attorney to provide notice to the client and 

all other parties who have appeared, and an affidavit stating the current or last known address of 

the client. Finally, to comply with Local Rule 182(d), the attorney must conform to the 

requirements of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Id. California Rule of 

Professional Conduct 3-700 provides several grounds upon which an attorney may seek to 

Case 2:15-cv-01933-KJM-KJN Document 16 Filed 08/25/16 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

withdraw, including where “[t]he client knowingly and freely assents to termination of the 

employment,” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(5), and where client’s conduct has “render[ed] it 

unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively,” Cal. R. Prof. 

Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d). 

The decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw is within the court’s discretion. 

McNally v. Eye Dog Found. for the Blind, Inc., No. 09-01184, 2011 WL 1087117, at *1 (E.D. 

Cal. Mar. 24, 2011) (citation omitted). District courts in this circuit have considered several 

factors when evaluating a motion to withdraw, including the reason for withdrawal, prejudice to 

the client, prejudice to the other litigants, harm to the administration of justice, and possible 

delay. See Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. 09-01643, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 

Sept. 15, 2010); CE Res., Inc. v. Magellan Group, LLC, No. 08-02999, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 

(E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2009); Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 07-594, 2008 WL 410694, at *2 

(S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008). 

II. DISCUSSION 

Good cause exists for counsel’s motion because plaintiff has “repeatedly failed to 

maintain regular communications.” Mot. at 3; see Am. Ward Decl. ¶¶ 11, 12, ECF No. 13-1. As 

a result counsel have been unable to prosecute the matter or provide timely responses to 

defendants. Mot. at 3. Second, after reviewing discovery issues, counsel and plaintiff have 

“reached an impasse based on irreconcilable differences on prosecuting this case further.” Id.; 

see also Am. Ward Decl. ¶ 4. The attorney-client relationship cannot be maintained where there 

is an irremediable breakdown in communication between plaintiff and counsel such that counsel 

can no longer effectively represent plaintiff. See United Fabrics Int’l, Inc. v. Life N Style 

Fashions Inc., No. 15-05733, 2016 WL 4208425, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2016) (the attorneyclient relationship is irreparably broken where the client refuses to provide necessary information 

in the course of the representation); McNally v. Eye Dog Found. For Blind, Inc., 2010 WL 

1687657, at *1–2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2010) (withdrawal by counsel allowed where irreconcilable 

differences have arisen between counsel and client, and where client has not paid attorney’s fees). 

Counsel has provided complete contact information for plaintiff, and served advance written and 

Case 2:15-cv-01933-KJM-KJN Document 16 Filed 08/25/16 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

verbal notice to plaintiff. Am. Ward Decl. ¶¶ 5, 8, 10. Plaintiff has not responded or filed any 

objection with the court. 

Given that good cause exists, the court next determines whether there is a risk of 

prejudice to plaintiff if the motion is granted. Here, counsel avers that he and plaintiff agreed that 

another attorney would be better suited for this case. Am. Ward Decl. ¶ 5. In addition, counsel 

has provided plaintiff with notice of the motion and with time to find new counsel. Id. ¶ 6. 

Moreover, this litigation is in its early stages with no dispositive motions filed as of the date of 

this order, and with discovery still open until October 14, 2016. Pretrial Sched. Order, ECF 

No. 11. The court finds the risk of prejudice to plaintiff is minimal if the motion is granted. 

Because no opposition has been filed, and the litigation is in its early stages, there 

is also no prejudice to the other litigants, no harm to the administration of justice, and no other 

delay. Any new counsel for plaintiff will have sufficient time to get up to speed. Should no new 

counsel be found, plaintiff may proceed pro se, an issue that counsel raised with plaintiff prior to 

the filing this motion. Am. Ward Decl. ¶ 7. 

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to withdraw is granted. 

III. CONCLUSION 

The motion to withdraw is GRANTED. The hearing on the motion vacated. The 

Clerk of Court is directed to serve this order on plaintiff at the address provided by counsel: 1530 

Fulton Avenue, #53, Sacramento, California 95825. As plaintiff is now pro se, the case is 

referred to the assigned magistrate judge for future proceedings under Local Rule 302(c)(21). 

This order resolves ECF No. 13. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 25, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-01933-KJM-KJN Document 16 Filed 08/25/16 Page 3 of 3