Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00643/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00643-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

ESG REPUBLIC, INC., et al.,

Defendants/Counterclaimants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00643-KES-CDB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT 

JEFFREY D. THORN’S SUBSTITUTIONS

OF ATTORNEY

(Docs. 66, 67)

Background

The Court has read and considered the two filed Consent Order Granting Substitution of 

Attorney forms AO-154 of Defendant Jeffrey D. Thorn (“Defendant”). (Docs. 66, 67).

Both forms appear intended to function as withdrawal requests rather than consents for 

substitution of attorney. The form concerning counsel Lawrence E. Heller has the signature of 

Defendant under the “Signature of Party” line, Heller’s signature under the “Signature of Former 

Attorney(s)” line, and Defendant’s signature again under the “Signature of New Attorney” line, 

with Defendant’s name printed beneath, followed by the words “pro se.” See (Doc. 66). 

The form concerning counsel Craig M. Lynch is substantially similar, except in place of 

Heller’s signature is Lynch’s signature. See (Doc. 67).

Case 1:23-cv-00643-KES-CDB Document 68 Filed 11/05/24 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

Discussion

Local Rule 182 provides in relevant part: “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.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 182(d). That rule 

separately provides that “[w]ithdrawal as attorney is governed by the Rules of Professional 

Conduct of the State Bar of California (the “CA Professional Rules”), and the attorney shall 

conform to the requirements of those Rules.” Id.

Here, counsel for Defendant have not filed a motion, noticed a motion hearing or attested 

to having provided notice to Defendant to obtain the relief they seek. Counsel separately have

not identified how withdrawal is consistent with the CA Professional Rules. Thus, for instance, 

it is unclear from counsel’s filings whether withdrawal is mandated under Rule 1.16(a) or 

whether permissive under Rule 1.16(b). If, for instance, Defendant knowingly and freely assents 

to termination of the representation (see Rule 1.16(b)(6)), counsel should file a motion consistent 

with Local Rule 182 indicating as such.

In short, Defendant’s filed Consent Order Granting Substitution of Attorney forms AO154 are the incorrect method for Heller and Lynch to withdraw as counsel. See Local Rule 

182(d).

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s substutions of attorney (Docs. 

66, 67) are DENIED. Counsel are directed to employ the appropriate procedure when seeking 

withdrawal, in compliance with Local Rule 182(d).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00643-KES-CDB Document 68 Filed 11/05/24 Page 2 of 2