Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00657/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00657-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:7422 Appeal from Administrative Decision

---

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

NASSR MOHAMED, as owner of )

Family Food Market and )

co-owner of Parkview Market, )

et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )

AGRICULTURE FOOD AND )

NUTRITION, )

)

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:05-CV-00657-SMS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW

(DOC. 30)

INFORMATIONAL ORDER TO PLAINTIFF

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO

UPDATE THE DOCKET

Plaintiffs are proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

Plaintiffs are proceeding with a civil action in this Court. By

order filed November 9, 2005, entered upon the parties’ consent,

Judge Anthony W. Ishii assigned this action to the undersigned

Magistrate Judge for all proceedings, including the entry of

final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Fed. R. Civ. P.

73(b), and Local Rule 73-301.

On November 6, 2006, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion to

withdraw as attorney for Plaintiffs, including a notice or motion

and motion, memorandum of points and authorities, declaration of

Roger K. Vehrs with attachments, and proofs of service upon the

Case 1:05-cv-00657-SMS Document 34 Filed 12/12/06 Page 1 of 5
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

parties and opposing counsel and courtesy service upon Bruce W.

Leichty. Despite the passage of the time for filing opposition or

any other response, neither any party nor any Plaintiff filed

opposition or any form of response. By separate order the Court

has vacated the hearing on the motion.

I. Motion to Withdraw

The grounds of the motion are that the clients have engaged

in conduct that has made it unreasonably difficult to carry out

the employment effectively. Plaintiff’s counsel, Roger K. Vehrs,

declared that he had recently spoken with Plaintiffs, who had

requested to hire new counsel because of a professed lack of

faith in present counsel; further, Vehrs has communicated with

the attorney Plaintiffs desired to substitute in, Mr. Bruce D.

Leichty, but has not succeeded in transferring the case to him.

the client freely assented to termination of a complete

breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.

Local Rule 83-182(d) provides that 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. Further, it

requires that the attorney provide an affidavit stating the

current or last known address or addresses of the client and the

efforts made to notify the client of the motion to withdraw.

Here, Plaintiffs’ address and telephone number are stated in the

moving papers. 

Local Rule 83-182 further states that withdrawal of the

attorney is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the

State Bar of California, and that the attorney shall conform to

Case 1:05-cv-00657-SMS Document 34 Filed 12/12/06 Page 2 of 5
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

the requirements of those Rules. 

Local Rule 83-182 provides that an attorney may request

withdrawal if grounds exist pursuant to the Rules of Professional

Conduct of the State Bar of California. Rule of Professional

Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d) permits withdrawal if the client by his or

her conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to

carry out the employment effectively; Rule 3-700(C)(6) permits

withdrawal if the member believes in good faith in a proceeding

pending before a tribunal that the tribunal will find he

existence of good cause for withdrawal. Rule 3-700(A) provides in

substance that a member must obtain permission to withdraw if

rules of a tribunal require it; a member shall not withdraw from

employment until the member has taken reasonable steps to avoid

reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client,

including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for

employment of other counsel, promptly releasing papers and

property, and complying with applicable laws and rules.

Here, Vehrs has demonstrated that his clients have refused

to return his telephone calls, and they desire a new attorney.

Vehrs has established the breakdown in the attorney-client

relationship and that continued employment has been rendered

unreasonably difficult; thus, grounds for withdrawal exist. He

has notified the clients of the instant motion in writing.

Further, a proof of service shows that the motion and declaration

were served on November 6, 2006, on Plaintiffs at the address

given. Vehrs has provided the address and telephone number of the

client. 

Although the deadline for dispositive motions is set for

Case 1:05-cv-00657-SMS Document 34 Filed 12/12/06 Page 3 of 5
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

February 6, 2007, Plaintiff has had ample time to seek counsel or

otherwise to prepare to engage in motion practice. There is no

indication that Plaintiffs have experienced any difficulty with 

locating other counsel.

Accordingly, the motion of attorney Roger K. Vehars to

withdraw as attorney for Plaintiffs IS GRANTED.

II. Updating the Docket

Because the withdrawal of counsel results in Plaintiffs’

proceeding pro se in this action, the Clerk of Court IS DIRECTED

TO UPDATE the docket to reflect Plaintiffs’ pro se status; their

last known address of c/o Parkview Market, 705 W. Belmont,

Fresno, California 93728; and their telephone number of (559)

266-6658.

III. Informational Order to Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs ARE INFORMED that failure to take appropriate

legal action may result in serious legal consequences, and

consideration of obtaining legal assistance is strongly advised.

Plaintiffs ARE ADVISED that regardless of whether or not

Plaintiffs are represented by counsel, Plaintiffs will be

expected to comply with all the requirements and deadlines stated

in the Court’s scheduling orders, including but not limited to

its order dated November 7, 2006, concerning filing of

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment/judgment on the

administrative record, which is due to be filed by Plaintiffs by

February 6, 2007. Plaintiffs must also comply with the pertinent

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As a party appearing in propria

persona, Plaintiff is also required by Local Rule 83-183(b) to

notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of address

Case 1:05-cv-00657-SMS Document 34 Filed 12/12/06 Page 4 of 5
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

or telephone number.

A failure to comply with an order of the Court may result in

a recommendation that the action be dismissed or in other

sanctions. Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00657-SMS Document 34 Filed 12/12/06 Page 5 of 5