Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01091/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01091-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

Jan Pierce, who was married to John Common, is also 1

known as Jan Common.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

SIGNET FINANCIAL GROUP, a

division of SIGNET CAPITAL

CORPORATION,

NO. CIV. S-01-1091 WBS PAN(JFM)

Plaintiff,

v. AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RE: MOTION TO WITHDRAW 

JOHN COMMON, JAN PIERCE,

WARRANTY U.S.A., INC.,

WARRANTY & FINANCIAL PRODUCTS,

INC., CONSUMER FINANCIAL

SERVICES GROUP, INC.,

MARKETING SOLUTIONS, and DOES

1 through 50, inclusive, 

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Signet Financial Group filed this lawsuit in

the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Solano

to recover damages for breach of contract. On June 4, 2001,

defendants John Common, Jan Pierce, Warranty U.S.A., Inc., 1

Warranty & Financial Products, Inc., Consumer Financial Services

Case 2:01-cv-01091-WBS -EFB Document 41 Filed 06/12/06 Page 1 of 6
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

Although the automatic stay in the case still appears 2

to be in effect, this fact does not bar the court’s consideration

of the instant motion to withdraw by an attorney for a defendant

who has not filed a bankruptcy petition. See Dean v. Trans World

Airlines, Inc., 72 F.3d 754, 755 (9th Cir. 1995) (allowing

lawyers to withdraw from the case does not violate a stay

pursuant to § 362(a) (citing United States v. Dos Cabezas Corp.,

995 F.2d 1486, 1491 (9th Cir. 1993) (“Ordinarily, . . . unless

the assets of the bankrupt estate are at stake, the automatic

stay does not extend to actions against parties other than the

debtor, such as codebtors and sureties.” (citations omitted,

listing authorities)))). The motions here do not involve any of

the parties to the bankruptcy proceeding, nor does the attorney

who seeks to withdraw represent any of those parties.

Stevens & O’Connell LLP represents defendants WUSA, 3

Inc. (sued herein as Warranty USA, Inc.), Warranty & Financial

Products, Inc., Consumer Financial Services Group, Inc., and

Direct Marketing Solutions, Inc. (sued herein as Marketing

Solutions), as well as John Common individually.

2

Group, Inc., and Marketing Solutions removed the case to this

court. Several months later, defendants Warranty USA, Inc.,

Consumer Financial Services Group, Inc., and Marketing Solutions

filed bankruptcy petitions in the District of Nevada, which

resulted in an automatic stay, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §

362(a)(1). With the exception of Stevens & O’Connell LLP’s 2 3

motion to be relieved as counsel filed in April, 2002, the docket

has been dormant ever since. 

However, unbeknownst to the court, defendant Pierce

died on June 26, 2002. (Stmt. of Fact of Death 1.) Jerry R.

Kimball was appointed as her Personal Representative and Executor

of her estate by the Superior Court of Washington in and for the

County of King on July 17, 2002. (Kimball Decl. Ex. A (attached

to Stmt. of Fact of Death).) Since that time, Kimball has worked

to settle the debts owed by Pierce’s estate and he herein

declares that “[a]t this time, the estate is finally at a point

where it can be closed.” (Id. ¶ 2.)

Case 2:01-cv-01091-WBS -EFB Document 41 Filed 06/12/06 Page 2 of 6
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

Clinchard stated at oral argument that he believes that 4

Kimball, in addition to being the estate representative, is also

an attorney.

3

According to Kimball, plaintiff in this action was

given the opportunity to file a claim against the estate based on

its interest in the outcome of this litigation. (Id. ¶ 6.) That

claim was rejected on May 9, 2005 and plaintiff failed to take

the procedural steps necessary to challenge that decision. 

(Id.); see also Wash. Rev. Code § 11.40.100(1) (“If the personal

representative rejects a claim, in whole or in part, the claimant

must bring suit against the personal representative within thirty

days after notification of rejection or the claim is forever

barred”). In light of these developments, Kimball, who

previously retained defendant Pierce’s attorney, James Clinchard

(and his firm--The Law Offices of K. Greg Peterson) to represent

the estate in the instant action, has determined that the

services of an outside attorney are no longer required.4

(Kimball Decl. ¶ 7 (attached to Stmt. of Fact of Death).) 

Accordingly and at his client’s behest, Clinchard, on behalf of

himself, K. Greg Peterson, and The Law Offices of K. Greg

Peterson, has moved to substitute Kimball as a defendant in this

action and to be relieved as counsel.

II. Discussion

A. Motion to Substitute Party in Interest

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) provides that

“if a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the

court may order substitution of the proper parties.” Rule 25

further specifies that a motion for substitution may be made by

Case 2:01-cv-01091-WBS -EFB Document 41 Filed 06/12/06 Page 3 of 6
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

any party or by the successors or representatives of the deceased

party. Id. 

Pursuant to these procedures, Clinchard has filed

statement of the fact of Pierce’s death, (R. 34), and now

“suggests” that “Kimball as personal representative of the Estate

of Jan Pierce aka Jan Common be substituted as the defendant in

the action in place of the deceased.” (Id.) Because Clinchard

was actually retained as counsel by Kimball to represent the

deceased’s interest in this matter, (id. (Kimball Decl. ¶ 7).),

he is capable of making such a motion on behalf of the deceased’s

representative. Cf. Fehrenbacher v. Quackenbush, 759 F. Supp.

1516, 1518 (D. Kan. 1991) (quoting Charles A. Wright et al.,

Federal Practice and Procedure § 1955 at 545 (2d ed. 1986)) (“The

attorney for the deceased party may not make the suggestion of

death since he is not himself a party to the action and, since

his authority to represent the deceased terminated on the death,

he is not a ‘representative of the deceased party’ of the sort

contemplated by the rule.”); Rende v. Kay, 415 F.2d 983, 985

(D.C. Cir. 1969) (holding that “[a]lthough the attorney for the

defendant was retained to ‘represent’ the deceased as his

counsel, he is not a person who could be made a party, and is not

a ‘representative of the deceased party’ in the sense

contemplated by Rule 25(a)(1)”). Consequently, substitution of

defendant Pierce’s personal representative as a party in this

action appears procedurally proper and will be granted. 

B. Motion to Withdraw as Attorney

In the instant motion, Clinchard, on behalf of himself,

K. Greg Peterson, and The Law Offices of K. Greg Peterson, also

Case 2:01-cv-01091-WBS -EFB Document 41 Filed 06/12/06 Page 4 of 6
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

The death of a client does not eliminate all duties 5

owed by an attorney to her former client. For example, the

attorney-client privilege continues to bind counsel to secrecy

until “the client’s estate is finally distributed and his

personal representative is discharged.” HLC Props., Ltd. v.

Superior Court, 35 Cal. 4th 54, 65 (2005) (quoting Cal. Evid.

Code § 954, Comm’n cmt. 29B pt. 3 at 232).

5

moves to be relieved as counsel pursuant to Rule 83-182(d) of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,

Eastern District of California, which provides that a court may

grant leave to withdraw, even if the client will be left in

propia persona, subject to such conditions as the court deems

fit. The rule also notes that withdrawal of an attorney is

governed by the California Rules of Professional Conduct, which

permit withdrawal when the client’s conduct “renders it

unreasonably difficult for the [attorney] to carry out the

employment effectively”--provided that the attorney seeking

permission to withdraw gives due notice to the client and takes

“reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to

the rights of the client . . . .” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-

700(A)(2), (C)(1)(d). Alternatively, the client can “knowingly

and freely assent[] to termination of the employment.” Cal. R.

Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(5).

To clarify, Clinchard, Peterson, and The Law Offices of

K. Greg Peterson no longer represent defendant Pierce, because

her death terminated their authority to act on her behalf.5

Deiter v. Kiser, 158 Cal. 259, 262 (1910); Smith v. Bear Valley

Milling & Lumber Co., 26 Cal. 2d 590, 601 (1945); see also Cal.

Civ. Code § 2356(a)(2) (delineating circumstances under which a

general principal-agent relationship terminates). However,

Case 2:01-cv-01091-WBS -EFB Document 41 Filed 06/12/06 Page 5 of 6
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

because the representative of her estate retained The Law Offices

of K. Greg Peterson, assumedly to provide continuous

representation of Pierce’s estate in this matter, and because

Pierce’s representative has by this order been substituted into

this case, her counsel remains counsel of record. (See Kimball

Decl. ¶ 7 (attached to Stmt. of Fact of Death).) Nevertheless,

because Kimball has not only assented to termination, but has

personally requested it, (id.), withdrawal by The Law Offices of

K. Greg Peterson, Peterson, and Clinchard is permissible. The

court is informed that Kimball is an attorney, so he should not

be precluded from representing the estate in this matter. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the deceased’s

representative’s Rule 25 motion for substitution be, and the same

hereby is, GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James Clinchard’s motion, on

behalf of himself, K. Greg Peterson, and The Law Offices of K.

Greg Peterson, to be relieved as counsel for defendant Jan

Piercebe, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

DATED: June 9, 2006

Case 2:01-cv-01091-WBS -EFB Document 41 Filed 06/12/06 Page 6 of 6