Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04977/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04977-9/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINDA PEDRAZA and FRANCISCO

PEDRAZA, individually and on

behalf of their son MP,

Plaintiff,

v

ALAMEDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

and THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATION, THE ALAMEDA BOARD OF

EDUCATION, ALAN NISHINO,

individually and as

Superintendent of the Alameda

Unified School District, ARDELLA

DAILEY, as superintendent of the

Alameda Unified School District,

DAVID WAX, individually and as

Special Education Director of the

Alameda Unified School District,

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATION and JACK O’CONNELL, as

State Superintendent of Public

Instruction for the State of

California, 

Defendants. /

No C-05-04977 VRW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Case 4:05-cv-04977-CW Document 119 Filed 02/19/08 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

On February 23, 2006, plaintiffs Linda and Francisco

Pedraza, individually and on behalf of their son Michael Pedraza,

filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”)(Doc #10) against Alameda

Unified School District (“AUSD”) and other defendants for

violations of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act

(IDEA), 20 USC §§ 1400, et seq; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

(“RA”), 20 USC § 794; 42 USC § 1983; and breach of contract. All

of plaintiffs’ claims were based on their allegation that AUSD

failed to provide Michael Pedraza the free and appropriate

education (FAPE) to which he was entitled under IDEA during the

2003-2004 school year. On March 27, 2007, the court dismissed

plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims and plaintiffs’ claims for compensatory

and punitive damages under the IDEA and punitive damages under the

RA. Doc #65 at 22. 

Two other cases were filed in the Pedrazas’ name in 2007. 

On September 17, 2007, plaintiffs’ counsel Vernon C Goins II

(“Goins”) filed a complaint for damages in this court, originally

docketed as No C-07-04781 MEJ. The 07-4781 complaint named the

same plaintiffs and defendants as the FAC and listed the same

causes of action, except the breach of contract cause of action. 

The chief difference between the 07-4781 complaint and the FAC is

that the 07-4781 complaint sought redress for the alleged denial of

a FAPE for three additional school years: 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and

2006-2007. Compare Doc #10 at ¶42 with Doc #5 in 07-04781 at ¶37. 

Then, on November 14, 2007, Linda Pedraza, on behalf of Michael

Pedraza, filed a petition in the state court appealing a June 19,

2007 decision of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) which

determined, among other things, that AUSD had not denied Michael

Case 4:05-cv-04977-CW Document 119 Filed 02/19/08 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Pedraza a FAPE for the 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school

years. Doc #1 in 07-5989 at Exh A. On November 27, 2007, AUSD and

OAH removed the state court action to this court (Doc #1 in 07-

5989), where it was originally docketed as No C-07-05989 EMC. 

Because the two new cases were both based on the issue

whether AUSD denied Michael Pedraza a FAPE, the undersigned related

the new cases to this case and then consolidated the cases, closing

the 2007 cases and ordering that all further pleadings and motions

be filed in No C-05-04977. Doc ##92, 97.

On December 17, 2007, Goins filed a motion to withdraw as

counsel of record for plaintiffs. Doc #93. On December 26, 2007,

Linda Pedraza filed a motion for issuance of an order to show cause

why Goins should not be sanctioned for alleged misconduct during

his representation of the Pedrazas. Doc #105. 

In addition, on December 19, 2007 and January 4, 2008,

Linda Pedraza filed separate motions for reconsideration of the

court’s orders relating and then consolidating the various cases

filed in Michael Pedraza’s name. Doc #100, 110. In these motions,

Linda Pedraza purports to represent her son, Michael Pedraza.

I

The first issue before the court is Goins’s motion to

withdraw as counsel. The trial court is given broad discretion in

determining whether a motion to withdraw should be granted. See

Whiting v Lacara, 187 F3d 317 (2d Cir 1999). Courts regularly

consult the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional

Conduct ("MRPC") as well as state-imposed ethical obligations. See

Whiting, 187 F3d at 321 ("[T]he Model Code provides guidance for

Case 4:05-cv-04977-CW Document 119 Filed 02/19/08 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

the court as to what constitutes 'good cause' to grant leave to

withdraw as counsel."). 

Here it is evident that Goins and plaintiffs’

relationship has degenerated to the point that it would be

extremely difficult for Goins to carry out further representation

effectively. Both Goins and plaintiffs are in favor of Goins’s

withdrawal. The dispute between Goins and plaintiffs dates back at

least as far as May 7, 2007, when Linda Pedraza filed a letter with

the court requesting that Goins be ordered to withdraw for reasons

including his alleged failure to communicate with plaintiffs

regarding the case. Doc #72. The court responded by ordering

plaintiffs and Goins to confer with Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena

James, which they did on June 7, 2007. Doc ##73, 78. These and

other efforts were apparently of no avail, as Linda Pedraza filed a

motion to dismiss counsel on December 11, 2007, citing as an

additional reason to dismiss Goins his filing of the 07-04781

action, allegedly without plaintiffs’ knowledge or approval. Doc

#91. For his part, Goins states that continued representation has

been made impossible in part by Linda Pedraza’s repeated filing of

documents with the court purporting to represent Michael Pedraza. 

Doc #94 at 6. 

On these facts, the court finds good cause for

withdrawal. See MPRC 1.16(a)(3) ("[A] lawyer shall not represent a

client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from

the representation of a client if * * * the lawyer is discharged.")

See also Paul W Vapnek, California Practice Guide: Professional

Responsibility 10:45-46 (The Rutter Group, 2006) ("A withdrawal

motion may properly be based simply on a personality clash with the

Case 4:05-cv-04977-CW Document 119 Filed 02/19/08 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

client. The breakdown in the attorney-client relationship is

ground for allowing the attorney to withdraw.") (citing Estate of

Falco, 188 Cal App 3d 1004, 1014 (1987)). 

The situation is complicated, however, by the fact that

Michael Pedraza is a minor. He is represented in this case by his

parents, Francisco and Linda Pedraza, as guardians at litem. Doc

#17. Although non-attorneys may appear pro se on their own behalf,

a non-attorney guardian must be represented by counsel in bringing

an action on behalf of a minor. Johns v County of San Diego, 114

F3d 874, 877 (9th Cir 1997). 

It has been brought to the court’s attention that

Francisco Pedraza is an active member of the State Bar of

California. But it is Linda Pedraza, a non-attorney, who has

repeatedly filed motions purportedly on Michael Pedraza’s behalf. 

The need for an attorney to represent Michael Pedraza’s interests

is underscored by these motions which, though earnest, offer the

court little assistance in sorting through the issues in this case. 

Because the case cannot proceed until Michael Pedraza, through his

guardians, is represented by an attorney, Goins’s motion to

withdraw must be denied. 

At a hearing on February 14, 2008, Francisco Pedraza told

the court that although he is admitted to the State Bar of

California, he is not admitted to the bar of this court and is a

transactional lawyer unfamiliar with litigation practice. He

feels, therefore, unable to represent his son effectively in this

matter.

The court respects the position of both Mr and Mrs

Pedraza but it also appreciates the awkward position in which Goins

Case 4:05-cv-04977-CW Document 119 Filed 02/19/08 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

finds himself. Johns, however, appears to tie the court’s hands

from proceeding in this matter without the appearance of new

counsel for plaintiffs. 

II

The other issue presently before the court centers around

the various motions filed by Linda Pedraza, purportedly on behalf

of Michael Pedraza. Linda Pedraza has filed a motion for issuance

of an order to show cause why Goins should not be sanctioned for

alleged misconduct during his representation of the Pedrazas (Doc

#105), a motion for reconsideration of the relation of Nos C-07-

04781 MEJ and C-07-05989 EMC to this case (Doc #100) and a motion

for reconsideration of the consolidation of these cases (Doc #110). 

Because a non-attorney guardian may not represent a minor child,

these motions – purportedly filed on behalf of Michael Pedraza –

are not properly before the court. The motions filed by Linda

Pedraza must be terminated. Upon appearance of new counsel, that

counsel can determine whether the issues raised by Linda Pedraza’s

various filings have any merit and proceed accordingly.

III

For reasons discussed above, the motion to withdraw as

counsel of record for plaintiffs (Doc #93) is DENIED without

prejudice. The motion for issuance of an order to show cause (Doc

#105) is TERMINATED and the motions for reconsideration of relation

and consolidation (Doc ##100, 110) are TERMINATED. 

The court ORDERS that the plaintiffs show cause in

writing on or before April 30, 2008, why this action should not be

Case 4:05-cv-04977-CW Document 119 Filed 02/19/08 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7

dismissed without prejudice for absence of counsel. Plaintiffs are

warned that good cause may be shown ONLY by the appearance of

substitute counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 4:05-cv-04977-CW Document 119 Filed 02/19/08 Page 7 of 7