Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02287/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02287-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

KATHRYN A. ROSSI,

2:06-CV-02287-MCE-GGH

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MARY ASKLAND, individually and

as the TRUSTEE of the MARY

AKSLAND SEPARATE PROPERTY

TRUST dated MAY 19, 1995, the

COUNTY of SAN JOAQUIN, the

SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION

DISTRICT, the LATHROP COUNTY

WATER DISTRICT and AT&T, INC.

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Kathryn Rossi (“Plaintiff”) brings this action

against Defendant Mary Askland, individually and as the trustee

of the Mary Askland Separate Property Trust dated May 19, 1995,

the County of San Joaquin, the South San Joaquin Irrigation

District, the Lathrop County Water District and AT&T, Inc.

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-02287-MCE -GGH Document 30 Filed 05/24/07 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

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

2

Plaintiff is seeking the partition of certain real property

pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 872.010 et seq.

1

Defendants County of San Joaquin, South San Joaquin Irrigation

District, Lathrop County Water District and AT&T, Inc.,

(collectively “Defendants”) are entities that have easements or

liens on the property that is the subject of this action.

On October 17, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this

matter alleging the foregoing causes of action. The Complaint

has been answered and the Pretrial Scheduling Order has been

issued. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s counsel’s

Motion to Withdraw pursuant to the Eastern District’s Local Rule

83-182(d) and the California Professional Rules of Conduct Rule

3-700. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Withdraw

is granted.

Plaintiff’s counsel, Hopkins and Carley, a law corporation,

have represented Plaintiff since the inception of this

litigation. Attorney Ellen McKissock’s declaration and moving

papers indicate that Ms. Rossi has failed to timely tender

payment in accord with the Parties’ representation agreement and

has failed to sign the substitution of counsel form provided her

thereby necessitating this Motion. According to Ms. McKissock,

there has been an irreconcilable breakdown in the attorney client

relationship.

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-02287-MCE -GGH Document 30 Filed 05/24/07 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

3

This motion is governed by the requirements of Local Rule

83-182(d), which 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. Hopkins and

Carley have clearly followed these procedural requirements. In

addition, on a substantive basis, Rule 83-182(b) specifies that

withdrawal by an attorney is governed by the Rules of

Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California. Rule 3-

700(C)(1)(d) provides that counsel may withdraw where the client

“renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out

the employment effectively.” Here, given Plaintiff’s failure to

communicate with her counsel, failure to tender timely payment

for services rendered and failure to oppose the present Motion,

the Court finds Plaintiff’s conduct meets the foregoing standard.

CONCLUSION

As explained above, Hopkins and Carley’s Motion to Withdraw

as Plaintiff’s Attorneys of Record is GRANTED.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-02287-MCE -GGH Document 30 Filed 05/24/07 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

4

Said firm is to provide defendants notice of the Court’s order

granting the motion to withdraw within ten (10) days from the

date of this order. A declaration stating the date and method of

such notification is to be filed with the court not later than

thirty (30) days from the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02287-MCE -GGH Document 30 Filed 05/24/07 Page 4 of 4