Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00701/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00701-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

This matter is before the Court on the motion of Lindsay Lien Amin on behalf of herself and

Eric Gruber (local counsel) to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff Carson Brenda, initially filed 

January 23, 2024, and supplemented on January 25, 2024. (Docs. 58, 60). The Court convened for an 

in-person and Zoom videoconference hearing on the motion on March 4, 2024. Counsel Amin and 

counsel for Defendant appeared via Zoom videoconference; Plaintiff Brenda did not appear. For the 

reasons set forth below, counsel Amin’s motion to withdraw will be granted.

Background

Plaintiff Carson Brenda is one of eight Plaintiffs who raise claims against Defendant Thomson 

International Inc., in a complaint filed on June 10, 2022. (Doc. 1). Brenda’s claims stem from alleged 

illness he suffered after consuming onions sourced by Defendant in or around July 1, 2022. Id. ⁋⁋49-

56. 

MATTHEW PETERSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THOMSON INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00701-JLT-CDB

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY LINDSAY 

LIEN AMIN’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS 

FOR PLAINTIFF

(Doc. 60) 

Case 1:22-cv-00701-JLT-CDB Document 68 Filed 03/11/24 Page 1 of 5
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

Legal Standard

The decision to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw is ultimately committed to the 

discretion of the trial court. United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009). “In ruling 

on a motion to withdraw as counsel, courts consider (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the 

prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the 

administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” 

Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 3:07-cv-00594-WQH-NLS, 2008 WL 410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 

Feb. 13, 2008) (citing Nat’l Career Coll., Inc. v. Spellings, No. 07-cv-00075-HG-LK, 2007 WL 

2048776, at *2 (D. Haw. July 11, 2007)); see CE Res., Inc. v. Magellan Grp., LLC, No. 2:08-cv02999-MCE-KJM, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2009) (noting that “[u]ltimately, the 

court’s ruling must involve a balancing of the equities”).

In addition to the above factors, withdrawal of counsel is governed by the Local Rules. Local 

Rule 182(d) provides that if withdrawal would leave a client without counsel, an attorney must file a 

formal motion and provide the client and all other parties with notice of the motion to withdraw. Id. 

The attorney must also submit an affidavit providing the current or last known address of the client 

and describing the efforts made to notify the client of the motion to withdraw. Id. 

Further, “[w]ithdrawal 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.” Id. The 

California Rules of Professional Conduct provide that if the rules of a court require permission for an 

attorney to withdraw, the attorney may not withdraw from employment in a proceeding without the 

permission of such court. Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(c). Also, counsel must take reasonable steps to 

avoid prejudicing the rights of the client, including providing notice, allowing time for the client to 

employ other counsel, and complying with applicable laws and rules. Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.6(d). 

Grounds for permissive withdrawal exist when “the client by other conduct renders it unreasonably 

difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.6(b)(4).

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:22-cv-00701-JLT-CDB Document 68 Filed 03/11/24 Page 2 of 5
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

Discussion

Counsel Amin attests that Plaintiff Brenda has failed to communicate with her about his 

pending claims. According to counsel Amin, Plaintiff Brenda’s conduct has rendered it impossible for 

counsel to respond to reasonable discovery requests or otherwise comply with his discovery

obligations. (Doc. 60 p. 2). Counsel Amin further attests that Plaintiff Brenda has not responded to 

her communications since June 2023. Counsel attempted to contact Plaintiff Brenda by phone, text 

message, email, and mail, without a response. Counsel specifically attests that she attempted to contact 

Plaintiff Brenda on September 13, October 10, October 27, and November 20, 2023, through either 

text messages or emails. (Doc. 60-1 p. 2). Counsel confirmed during the motion hearing that, up until 

June 2023, she had successfully communicated with Plaintiff Brenda using all three of those 

communication mediums (phone, text message, and email).

On January 5, 2024, counsel Amin contacted Plaintiff Brenda by email, mail, and text message 

informing him that she intended to discontinue representation unless he responded. Id. ⁋8. She also 

attempted to call Plaintiff Brenda on January 16, 2024, but he did not answer, and his voicemail was 

full. During the motion hearing, counsel Amin represented that the voicemail message identified 

Plaintiff Brenda. Counsel also attempted to contact Plaintiff Brenda by text message. Counsel Lien 

Amin attempted to contact Plaintiff Brenda through calling or texting him her intention to withdraw 

but received no answer. Id. ⁋9.

Finally, on January 22, 2024, counsel Amin sent Plaintiff Brenda a letter through U.S. postal 

mail as well as an email explaining her notice of motion to withdraw as counsel and informing him of 

the consequences of such a motion. Id. ⁋10. She sent another notice following the Court’s denial of 

her initial motion to withdraw. Id. ⁋12. During the motion hearing, counsel Amin confirmed that none 

of the correspondence she has transmitted to Plaintiff Brenda via U.S. postal mail has been returned 

“undeliverable.”

The Court finds counsel Amin has provided good cause to withdraw under the California Rules 

of Professional Conduct as it appears a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship has occurred

despite counsel Amin’s attempts to engage with Plaintiff Brenda over an extended period of time 

(between June 2023 and the present). Further, counsel Amin has complied with the notice 

Case 1:22-cv-00701-JLT-CDB Document 68 Filed 03/11/24 Page 3 of 5
4

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

requirements in Local Rule 182(d). The Court also notes granting withdrawal will not cause any 

prejudice to any litigant, to the administration of justice, or delay the resolution of the case. Among 

other things, the Court notes that Defendant has not opposed the pending motion, or otherwise asserted 

that it will suffer any prejudice from the Court’s granting of the pending motion.

Because Plaintiff Brenda has not filed a substitution of attorney, the Court will direct him to 

inform the Court in writing within fourteen (14) days of the service of this order whether he intends to 

continue prosecuting this action and, if so, whether he intends to obtain substitute counsel or proceed 

pro se. Any failure by Plaintiff to respond to the Court’s order in this regard will result in the 

dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s order. 

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above:

1. Lindsay Lien Amin’s motion to withdraw as counsel (Doc. 60) is GRANTED;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Lindsay Lien Amin and Eric R. 

Gruber as the counsel of record for Plaintiff Carson Brenda.

3. Counsel Lien Amin shall comply with all obligations under Rule 1.16(e) of the 

California Rules of Professional Conduct regarding the release of a client’s papers 

and property and the return of unearned fees; and

4. Plaintiff is substituted in pro se and is directed to comply with all hearing dates and 

the rules of the Court;

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter the following contact information as 

Plaintiff’s address of record:

Carson W. Brenda

19448 Brookside Way

Bend, OR 97702

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order on Plaintiff Brenda by mail;

7. Plaintiff Brenda is directed to inform the court within fourteen (14) days of service 

of this order whether he intends to continue prosecuting this action and, if so, 

Case 1:22-cv-00701-JLT-CDB Document 68 Filed 03/11/24 Page 4 of 5
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

whether he intends to obtain new counsel or represent himself. Any failure by 

Plaintiff to respond to the court’s order in this regard will result in the dismissal of 

this action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00701-JLT-CDB Document 68 Filed 03/11/24 Page 5 of 5