Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01184/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01184-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1131 ERISA - Collection of Delinquent Trust Funds

---

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

MONTRY McNALLY; RUBY BELL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EYE DOG FOUNDATION FOR THE

BLIND, INC.; EYE DOG FOUNDATION

PROFIT SHARING PLAN; and GWEN

BROWN,

Defendants.

____________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:09-cv-1184 AWI SKO 

ORDER GRANTING AMENDED MOTION

TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR

DEFENDANTS

(Doc. 22)

INTRODUCTION

On March 17, 2010, Defendants’ counsel H. Steven Schiffres, Esq., of Rosoff, Schiffres &

Barta filed an Amended Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendants. (Doc. 22.) The motion 1

was scheduled to be heard at 9:30 a.m. on April 30, 2010, before this Court. On April 20, 2010, the

Court determined the matter was suitable for decision without oral argument, and the matter was

taken under submission pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). 

///

///

 Although Howard Rosoff of Rosoff, Schiffres & Barta appears on this case’s docket as 1

representing Defendants, Mr. Schiffres filed the present motion and supporting declaration.

Case 1:09-cv-01184-AWI -SKO Document 27 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 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

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Montry McNally and Ruby Bell filed a complaint on July 8, 2009, and a First

Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on November 25, 2009, against the Eye DogFoundation for theBlind,

Inc.; its Executive Director, Gwen Brown; and the Eye Dog Foundation Profit Sharing Plan. The

FAC alleges causes of action arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,

including breach of fiduciary duties; failure to comply with the beneficiaries’ request for

information; breach of contract; breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing; fraud; negligent

misrepresentation; violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200 et seq.; and intentional

infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, monetary damages plus interest

and fees and costs of suit. (Doc. 17.)

On December 15, 2009, Defendants filed their answer to the FAC. (Doc. 18.) Counsel for

Defendants thereafter filed an amended motion to withdraw as counsel under Local Rule 182(d) and

Rule 3-700(C)(1)(f) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct on the basis of lack of

communication with Defendants,leading “directlyto an irreconcilable conflict regarding the conduct

of the defense.” (Doc. 22 at 4.) Furthermore, according to counsel, Defendants have failed and

refused for several months to pay counsel’s fees. (Doc. 22 at 4-5.)

DISCUSSION

Local Rule 182(d) provides as follows:

Unless otherwise provided herein, 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 client and all other parties who have appeared. The attorney

shall 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. 

Withdrawal as attorneyis governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State

Bar of California, and the attorney shall conform to the requirements of those Rules. 

The authority and duty of the attorney shall continue until relieved by order of the

Court issued hereunder. Leave to withdraw may be granted subject to such

appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit.

Attached to counsel’s motion is the Declaration of H. Steven Schiffres, in which counsel

indicates that “irreconcilable differences have arisen between [counsel and Defendants] as to matters

2

Case 1:09-cv-01184-AWI -SKO Document 27 Filed 04/26/10 Page 2 of 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

relative to the defense of the lawsuit,” resulting in “an irremedial breakdown in communication

between Defendants and [counsel], precluding [counsel] from effectively representing Defendants

in this lawsuit and to maintain an appropriate attorney-client relationship.” (Am. Schiffres Decl.

¶ 6.) Counsel further declares that Defendants have failed to pay attorney’s fees, despite counsel’s

repeated efforts to collect such fees, and that counsel notified Defendants in writing on several

occasions of counsel’s intent to withdraw. (Am. Schiffres Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.)

Counsel for Defendants has provided complete contact information for Defendants. (Am.

Schiffres Decl. ¶ 3.) Counsel indicates he has served the instant motion upon Plaintiffs’ counsel and

Defendants. (See Doc. 22 [Proof of Service].) No opposition to the instant motion has been filed.

Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(f) provides that an attorney may request

permission to withdraw if the client breaches an agreement or obligation as to expenses or fees. Rule

3-700(A)(2) also provides that 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, complying

with rule 3-700(D), and complying with applicable laws and rules.” Here, counsel has provided 2

Defendants with notice of the motion and with time to find additional counsel. Defendants have not

opposed the motion. Moreover, this litigation is in its early stages. Therefore, the risk of prejudice

to Defendants is minimal if this motion is granted.

Because no opposition has been filed and there appears to be no prejudice to Defendants, the

motion will be granted. However, Defendants are advised that “a corporation may appear in the

federal courts only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202

(1993); United States v. High Country Broad. Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam);

see also Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 829 (1824). All artificial entities must

appear in federal court through counsel. Rowland, 506 U.S. at 202. Additionally, this Court’s Local

Rule 183(a) provides: “A corporation or other entity may appear only by an attorney.” 

 Section 3-700(D) pertains to returning property and funds to clients. 2

3

Case 1:09-cv-01184-AWI -SKO Document 27 Filed 04/26/10 Page 3 of 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The amended motion to withdraw as counsel is GRANTED;

2. Counsel is ordered to serve a copy of this order on Defendants via email and the

United States Postal Service forthwith. Counsel shall provide the Court with a

declaration indicating proof of service;

3. The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to RELIEVE Rosoff, Schiffres & Barta as

counsel for Defendants; and

4. Defendants shall retain counsel or provide the Court with a statement regarding their

intention to obtain counsel within sixty (60) days of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:09-cv-01184-AWI -SKO Document 27 Filed 04/26/10 Page 4 of 4