Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06865/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06865-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1402 Medical Malpractice

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUSTAVO FILIBERTO CISNEROS CASE NO. CV-F-03-6865 LJO

DONDIEGO, JR., et al.,

ORDER TO GRANT MOTION TO

vs. WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND TO

DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (Doc. 12.) 

Defendants.

 /

INTRODUCTION

The law firm of Perez, Williams & Medina (“PWM”) seeks to withdraw as counsel for minor

plaintiff Gustavo Filiberto Cisneros Dondiego, Jr. (“Gustavo Jr.”) in this medical malpractice action.

This Court conducted March 11 and 22, 2005, April 27, 2005 and May 24, 2005 hearings on PWM’s

motions to withdraw. PWM appeared at the hearings by Robert Gray Williams (“Mr. Williams”) and

Robert Perez. Defendant United States of America (“Government”) appeared at the hearings by

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kristi Kapetan. Gustavo Dondiego (“Mr. Dondiego”), Gustavo Jr.’s father and

guardian ad litem, appeared only at the April 27, 2005 hearing during which this Court explained that

this action cannot proceed without new counsel to represent Gustavo Jr. and that this Court will dismiss

this action without prejudice if new counsel is not retained for Gustavo Jr. Neither Mr. Dondiego nor

the Government has filed papers to oppose PWM’s withdrawal, and no new counsel has appeared for

Gustavo Jr. For the reasons discussed below, this Court:

1. GRANTS PWM’s motion to withdraw; and

Case 1:03-cv-06865-NEW Document 20 Filed 05/25/05 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

2. DISMISSES this action without prejudice. 

BACKGROUND

During March 2000 to July 24, 2001, Gustavo Jr., now age 13, received medical treatment from

Sequoia Community Health Foundation, Inc., d/b/a Ventura P. Huerta Health Center (“health center”),

in Fresno. Gustavo Jr. alleges that the health center negligently failed to diagnose development of

brain tumors to result in his blindness and retarded mental development. The Federal Tort Claims Act,

28 U.S.C. §§1346(b), 2401(b) and 2671-2680, applies coverage to federally supported health centers and

their employees for acts or omissions, pursuant to the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance

Act of 1992, 42 U.S.C. § 233(g)-(n). Therefore, the health center and its employees are deemed

employees of the Public Health Service and covered by 42 U.S.C. § 233(a) for acts and omissions

alleged in this action.

On December 17, 2003, Mr. Dondiego was appointed guardian ad litem for Gustavo Jr. and filed

this action for Gustavo Jr. to allege medical malpractice claims against the health center and its

employees, whom the Government defends. On February 4, 2005, PWM filed its motion to withdraw

on grounds “developments . . . preclude[] counsel from proceeding with the prosecution of this case.”

In his February 4, 2005 declaration, Gustavo Jr.’s lead counsel Mr. Williams indicates that PWM’s

papers were personally delivered to Mr. Dondiego’s residence and that a PWM associate “contacted Mr.

Dondiego by telephone and informed him in Spanish of this motion and the scheduled hearing date.”

PWM presents a substitution of attorney signed by Mr. Dondiego to “substitute and appoint themselves

in propria persona” in place of PWM. PWM indicates that Mr. Dondiego “will be seeking the advise of

another attorney for a second opinion.”

On March 23, 2005 and pursuant to this Court’s March 11, 2005 order, PWM filed its declaration

under seal to explain its substantive grounds to withdraw. Also on March 23, 2005, with hopes Mr.

Dondiego could secure new counsel and at PWM’s request, this Court issued its March 23, 2005 order

to extend discovery, motion and trial dates. Mr. Dondiego attended the April 27, 2005 hearing during

which this Court explained that this action cannot proceed without new counsel to represent Gustavo

Jr. and that this Court will dismiss the action without prejudice if new counsel is not retained for

Gustavo Jr. Mr. Dondiego indicated that he understood the Court’s explanation. At the April 27, 2005

Case 1:03-cv-06865-NEW Document 20 Filed 05/25/05 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

hearing with its order of the same date, this Court set a May 24, 2005 hearing and ordered Mr.

Dondiego’s new counsel, if any, to appear. Neither Mr. Dondiego nor new counsel appeared at the May

24, 2005 hearing although Mr. Dondiego was given sufficient notice of the hearing.

DISCUSSION

This Court’s Local Rule 83-182(d) addresses attorney withdrawal and provides in pertinent part:

. . . an attorney who has appeared may not withdraw leaving the client in propria persona

without leave of Court upon noticed motion and written notice to the client and all other

parties who have appeared. The attorney shall provide an affidavit stating the current or

last known address or addresses of the client and efforts made to notify the client of the

motion to withdraw. Withdrawal as attorney is governed by the Rules of Professional

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

requirements of those Rules. The authority and duty of the attorney of record shall

continue until relieved by order of the Court issued hereunder. Leave to withdraw may

be granted subject to such appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit.

California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-700(C) addresses permissive withdrawal and

states in pertinent part:

. . . a member may not request permission to withdraw in matters pending before a

tribunal . . . unless such request or such withdrawal is because:

(5) The client knowingly and freely assents to termination of the employment . . .

California Code of Civil Procedure section 284 allows an attorney to be “changed at any time

before or after judgment” upon “consent of both the client and attorney” or “order of the court” upon

notice to the client. “The question of granting or denying an application of an attorney to withdraw as

counsel . . . is one which lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ‘having in mind whether such

withdrawal might work an injustice in the handling of the case.’” People v. Prince, 268 Cal.App.2d 398,

403-404, 74 Cal.Rptr. 197, 202-203 (1968) (citations omitted);see Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court,

66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 494, 497 (1998) (“The determination whether to grant or

deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies within a trial court’s sound discretion.”); People v. Brown,

203 Cal.App.3d 1335, 1340, 250 Cal.Rptr. 762 (1988); see The Statute of Liberty – Ellis Island

Foundation, Inc. v. International United Industries,Inc., 110 F.R.D. 395, 397 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (granting

withdrawal because client failed to cooperate and pay legal expenses). “The office of attorney is one

of the very highest confidence and when the client suspects and questions the good faith of his attorney

the attorney should be permitted to withdraw from the case unless some very compelling reason exists

Case 1:03-cv-06865-NEW Document 20 Filed 05/25/05 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

for forcing him to continue with the ungrateful task.” Helpe v. Kluge, 104 Cal.App.2d 461, 462, 231

P.2d 505 (1951).

Moreover, in In re Woodcock, 100 B.R. 520 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1989), the Bankruptcy Court of

this Eastern District of California addressed attorney withdrawal under Local Rule 182(b), the

predecessor to current Local Rule 83-182(d). The bankruptcy court noted that this Court’s Local Rules

“define the methods for making an appearance and the terms and conditions of withdrawal” and that

withdrawals leaving a client unrepresented are governed by Local Rule 182(b) (current Local Rule 83-

182(d)). Woodcock, 100 B.R. at 522. The bankruptcy court explained:

Thus, counsel . . . may withdraw only if there is either (1) a substitution of a new counsel

. . . or (2) a court order authorizing withdrawal, which order must be on motion noticed

to the client and all other parties who have appeared and which is subject to the further

requirement that counsel has taken reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the

rights of the client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for

employment of other counsel, delivering to the client all papers and property to which

the client is entitled, and complying with any other applicable laws and rules. 

Woodcock, 100 B.R. at 523.

PWM claims that it advised Mr. Dondiego of developments that preclude PWM’s continued

representation of Gustavo Jr. and that Mr. Dondiego would seek advise of a second attorney. PWM

provided Mr. Dondiego notice of its motion to withdraw and obtained Mr. Dondiego’s signature to an

substitution of attorney to claim Mr. Dondiego assents to termination of PWM’s employment. PWM

provided its declaration under seal to provide good cause grounds for its withdrawal. This Court

explained, and Mr. Dondiego indicated he understood, the need to obtain new counsel for Gustavo Jr.

Although PWM has addressed technical matters for withdrawal, Gustavo Jr. cannot be left

unrepresented by counsel. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and other circuit courts hold “that a

parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer.” Johns

v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997). A non-lawyer “has no authority to appear

as an attorney for others than himself.” C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th

Cir. 1987) (upholding dismissal of minor’s claims without prejudice which were brought by father as

the minor’s guardian ad litem). The issue of whether a parent can pursue a pro se lawsuit for a minor

“falls squarely within the ambit of the principles that militate against allowing non-lawyers to represent

others in court.” Brown v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 868 F.Supp. 168, 172 (E.D. Va. 1994). 

Case 1:03-cv-06865-NEW Document 20 Filed 05/25/05 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

The Ninth Circuit has adopted the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ reasoning:

The choice to appear pro se is not a true choice for minors who under state law, see

F.R.Civ.P. 1(b), cannot determine their own legal actions. There is thus no individual

choice to proceed pro se for courts to respect, and the sole policy at stake concerns the

exclusion of non-licensed persons to appear as attorneys on behalf of others.

It goes without saying that it is not in the interests of minors or incompetents that

they be represented by non-attorneys. Where they have claims that require adjudication,

they are entitled to trained legal assistance so their rights may be fully protected.

Johns, 114 F.3d at 876-877 (quoting Osei-Afriyie v. Medical College, 937 F.2d 876, 882-883 (3rd Cir.

1991)).

As a non-attorney, Mr. Dondiego cannot pursue Gustavo Jr.’s claims. This Court is obligated

to protect Gustavo Jr. to see that he is represented by counsel. See F.R.Civ.P. 17(c) (court “shall make

such other order as it deems proper for the protection of the infant"). This Court is not in a position to

leave Gustavo Jr. unrepresented in light of PWM’s warranted withdrawal. In the absence of new counsel

for Gustavo Jr., this Court’s only option is to dismiss this action without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court:

1. GRANTS PWM’s motion to withdraw;

2. ORDERS PWM, if it has not done so already, to provide Mr. Dondiego all papers and

property to which Mr. Dondiego is entitled and to comply with other applicable laws and

rules;

3. ORDERS PWM to assist new counsel, if any is retained, in transition to represent

Gustavo Jr.;

4. DISMISSES this action without prejudice and VACATES all pending dates, including

the January 10, 2006 pretrial conference and February 27, 2006 trial; and

5. DIRECTS this Court’s clerk to serve a copy of this order on Gustavo Dondiego, 944

West Myers, Fresno, CA 93706.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06865-NEW Document 20 Filed 05/25/05 Page 5 of 5