Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01446/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01446-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

- 1 - 09CV0916

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEREK WILLIAMS, an individual, by and

through his Guardian ad Litem, WILLIAM

GONZALEZ; ROSALINDA GONZALEZ,

an individual; ASHLEY GONZALEZ, an

individual, by and through her Guardian

ad Litem, WILLIAM GONZALEZ;

CARMEN WILLIAMS, an individual, by

and through her Guardian ad Litem, 

WILLIAM GONZALEZ, WILLIAM

GONZALEZ, Guardian ad Litem,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 10cv01446-LAB

(RBB)

ORDER APPROVING

WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL

vs.

T. BYRNE, an individual; K. SEEL, an

individual; MICHAEL ASTORGA, an

individual; FNU SAMUELS, an individual;

SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, a public entity; COUNTY

OF SAN DIEGO, a public entity; and

Does 1-100, inclusive,

Defendants.

Counsel for Plaintiffs, the Gomez Law Firm, has requested permission to withdraw

from this case pursuant to Local Rule 83.3(g)(3) because Plaintiffs have made it

unreasonably difficult for GLF to represent them. Plaintiffs have not been in regular

communication with GLF, and Plaintiff Derek Williams, allegedly, has engaged in recent

Case 3:10-cv-01446-LAB-RBB Document 34 Filed 07/01/11 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

- 2 - 09CV0916

criminal conduct that has made it unreasonably difficult for GLF to conduct discovery.

Local Rule 83.3(g)(3) allows for an attorney of record to withdraw from a case if he

serves notice to his client and the adverse party and proves that such service was

successful. The Court also looks to California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d)

and (f), which allows for attorney withdrawal when a client “renders it unreasonably difficult

for the [attorney] to carry out the employment effectively.” The Court finds, based on the

brief of GLF and the supporting declaration of Steven Vosseller, that the withdrawal of GLF

is warranted, and will not unfairly prejudice the Plaintiffs. 

While GLF has apparently served the notice of withdrawal on Plaintiffs and the

Defendants, it has only filed a certificate of service for the Defendants. The request to

withdraw is GRANTED, but only upon the filing of proof that the Plaintiffs have also been

notified of GLF’s intent to withdraw. At that time, Plaintiffs shall have 21 days to either retain

new counsel or notify the Court of an intent to proceed pro se. If the Court does not hear

from Plaintiffs within this 21-day period, the Court will dismiss this case with prejudice. GLF

should also serve the Plaintiffs personally with this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 30, 2011

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01446-LAB-RBB Document 34 Filed 07/01/11 Page 2 of 2