Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01640/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01640-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

----oo0oo----

DENISE FRANCIS,

NO. CIV. S 04-1640 MCE JFM

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

DEFENSE COMMISSARY AGENCY aka

(DeCA) AND DOES 1-30, 

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On May 5, 2005, Attorney David Ndudim, who is counsel for

Plaintiff Denise Francis in this litigation, filed a document

entitled “Withdrawal of Attorney of Record” that purported to

effectuate a substitution of attorney leaving his client to

represent herself, in propria persona, in this litigation. By

Order filed May 19, 2005, the Court denied Attorney Ndudim’s

request to withdraw, without prejudice, on grounds that it failed

to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 83-182(d). 

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01640-MCE -JFM Document 11 Filed 07/18/05 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

That Rule provides that an attorney may not withdraw, leaving the

client in propria persona, absent noticed motion and an affidavit

from counsel showing the efforts made to provide notification of

the attorney’s intent to withdraw.

On June 8, 2005, the Court issued a Minute Order requiring

Mr. Ndudim to submit, not later than June 22, 2005, a declaration

as to the status of the case and his efforts, if any, to

effectuate a substitution of attorneys. In apparent response to

that Order, Mr. Ndudim submitted, on June 21, 2005, a document

entitled “Withdrawal of Attorney of Record and Declaration of

David Ndudim Regarding Status of the Case”. 

To the extent that Mr. Ndudim’s filing of June 21, 2005

purports to accomplish his withdrawal as counsel of record from

this case, it remains defective for the same reasons previously

identified in this Court’s earlier Order dated May 19, 2005. 

Mr. Ndudim has not filed a noticed motion as required by Rule 83-

182(d) and has not served his client with that motion. Aside

from indicating that he sent “a certified mail to plaintiff

regarding [the] withdrawal” and “has yet to receive any

response”, Ndudim has not set forth the efforts made to notify

his client of his intent to withdraw. Moreover, and in any

event, Ndudim has not indicated the basis for his withdrawal

request under the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar

of California. 

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01640-MCE -JFM Document 11 Filed 07/18/05 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

Consequently Attorney Ndudim’s request to withdraw is again

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 18, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01640-MCE -JFM Document 11 Filed 07/18/05 Page 3 of 3