Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00187/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00187-8/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

P. ORB HATTON, an individual, and DIANE 

HATTON, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national 

association; BSI FINANCIAL SERVICES, a 

business entity; and Does 1 through 100, 

inclusive,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00187-EPG

 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY OF 

RECORD

(ECF No. 83)

On February 1, 2017, plaintiffs’ counsel Jamil L. White and Andrey R. Yurtsan of Louis | 

White PC filed a Motion to Withdraw as Attorneys of Record. (ECF No. 83.) The hearing on the 

Motion was held on March 2, 2017. White and Yurtsan appeared telephonically. Plaintiffs P. Orb 

Hatton and Diane Hatton appeared telephonically. Anthony Johnston also entered a special 

telephonic appearance on behalf of the Hattons to oppose the Motion. Defendant’s counsel 

Stephanie Lewis appeared telephonically, but was instructed to disconnect from the call before 

the substance of the Motion was discussed. Because the Motion concerned the attorney-client 

relationship between attorneys White and Yurtsan and the Hattons, the record was sealed. 

Case 1:15-cv-00187-EPG Document 95 Filed 03/15/17 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

2

Attorneys White and Yurtsan were instructed to file supplemental briefing under seal, 

pursuant to Local Rule 141, in support of their Motion. Attorney Johnston was also permitted to 

file supplemental briefing under seal. (ECF No. 87.) On March 9 and 10, 2017, attorneys White, 

Yurtsan, and Johnston submitted supplemental briefing to the Court. The briefing was filed under 

seal and the Motion was taken under submission. After considering the pleadings and arguments 

by the parties and for the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Withdraw as 

Attorneys of Record.

I. BACKGROUND

The initial Complaint in this action was filed on February 4, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) The 

action is currently proceeding on the First Amended Complaint, which was filed on July 29, 

2015. (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiffs’ first attorney, Matthew Mellen of the Mellen Law Firm, was 

permitted to withdraw on August 13, 2015. (ECF No. 54.) Louis | White PC appeared in the case 

on November 25, 2015. (ECF No. 68.) On April 8, 2016, Defendant Bank of America, N.A. was 

dismissed from the action based on a stipulation between the parties. (ECF No. 74.) The sole 

remaining defendant is BSI Financial Services (“BSI”). Discovery in the case has now closed and 

the pretrial conference is set for July 27, 2017. A trial is set for September 26, 2017.

II. DISCUSSION

Rule 182(d) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of 

California provides that an attorney who has appeared on behalf of a client may not withdraw, 

leaving the client in propria persona, without leave of court. “Withdrawal of an attorney is 

governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California.” Local Rule 182(d). 

Under those rules, permissive withdrawal of an attorney is allowed when, among other things, a 

client “breaches an agreement or obligation to the member as to expenses or fees.” Cal. Rule of 

Prof’l Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(f). Courts maintain the discretion to grant or deny a motion to 

withdraw as counsel, however. LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998). In 

considering such a motion, courts may consider: “(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) 

the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the 

administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the 

Case 1:15-cv-00187-EPG Document 95 Filed 03/15/17 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

case.” Leatt Corp. v. Innovative Safety Tech., LLC, No. 09-CV-1301-IEG (POR), 2010 WL 

444708, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2010). “Leave to withdraw may be granted subject to such 

appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit.” Local Rule 182(d).

Attorneys White and Yurtsan contend that they must withdraw as attorneys of record 

because: (1) Plaintiffs have not cooperated with the strategy to litigate the case that they had 

previously agreed to; (2) Plaintiffs have breached an agreement to pay Louis | White PC a deposit 

in advance of trial; and (3) Plaintiffs have not taken the necessary steps in a pending bankruptcy 

proceeding to ensure that Louis | White PC is paid. (ECF No. 83-1.) Attorneys White, Yurtsan, 

and Johnston have all submitted documents, which were filed under seal, to accompany the 

arguments they made at the hearing regarding these contentions. The Court has reviewed the 

sealed documents and will not recount their contents in their entirety here. 

Based on a review of those documents, however, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs 

entered into an agreement with Louis | White PC to pay a deposit of costs in advance of trial on 

demand by Louis | White PC. Attorneys White and Yurtsan demanded such a deposit multiple 

times over a period of months, but the deposit was never paid. Indeed, no portion of the deposit 

was paid.

Attorney Johnston contends that the demand for costs is actually a demand for fees, but 

there no evidence supporting that contention. The deposit is consistently referred to as a deposit 

for costs, both in the retainer agreement and in communications between the parties. The amount 

of the deposit requested is similarly more consistent with a request for costs, rather than fees. 

Attorney Johnston also disputes the amount of the deposit requested, but offers little basis for this 

dispute, aside from his own professional opinion. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not advanced any 

costs, even at a lower amount they contend is reasonable.

Good cause exists to allow Louis | White PC leave to withdraw as Plaintiffs’ counsel of 

record. The trial in this matter is still six months away and Plaintiffs appear to have had little 

difficulty attracting a number of different attorneys to represent them in various matters

(including, for example, attorney Johnston). Moreover, it is apparent that the relationship between 

Louis | White PC and the Hattons would not be conducive to an efficient resolution of the case, 

Case 1:15-cv-00187-EPG Document 95 Filed 03/15/17 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

were Louis | White PC compelled to remain in the case. The withdrawal will create little 

prejudice to the other litigants in this case, will not harm the administration of justice, and will not 

cause unnecessary delay in the resolution of the case. 

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record (ECF No. 

83) is GRANTED. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Louis | White PC is relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs shall be 

substituted in to proceed in the case pro se and all future communications shall be 

directed to Plaintiffs directly at: P. Orb Hatton, 10265 Granite Dell Road, Coulterville, 

California, 95311; and Diane Hatton, 10265 Granite Dell Road, Coulterville, 

California, 95311;

2. Within 30 days after entry of this Order, Louis | White PC shall provide Plaintiffs with 

a copy of their complete case file, if they have not already done so.

The Court strongly recommends that Plaintiffs retain new counsel to represent them in this 

litigation. In the event they are unable to do so, Plaintiffs are responsible for complying with all 

court rules and applicable laws. Failure to do so, and failure to comply with any order of the 

court, may result in sanctions or dismissal of this action. Plaintiffs are also advised to keep the 

Court apprised of their current mailing address and telephone number. Failure to do so may result 

in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2017 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00187-EPG Document 95 Filed 03/15/17 Page 4 of 4