Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00303/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00303-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ford Motor Company
Defendant
Shoukat Khan
Plaintiff
Sanober Mirza
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

SHOUKAT KHAN, and SANOBER )

MIRZA, )

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, )

)

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:05cv303 REC DLB

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEYS’ 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL 

OF RECORD FOR PLAINTIFFS

(Document 22)

Daniel Rodriguez, Joel T. Andreeson and Charles R. Chapman of Rodriguez &

Associates and W. Randolph Barnhart, Michael J. McNally and Angela L. Ekker of Barnhart,

Ekker & McNally, LLP (collectively “Counsel”) filed the instant motion to withdraw as

Plaintiffs’ attorneys of record on July 22, 2005. The matter was heard on August 26, 2005,

before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Daniel Rodriguez and

Michael J. McNally appeared. Neither Plaintiffs Shoukat Khan and Sanober Mirza (collectively

“Plaintiffs”) nor Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”) appeared at the hearing.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed the instant products liability action on March 2005. The action arises from

a September 10, 2003, automobile accident in which Plaintiff Khan’s Ford Explorer rolled over

several times and he sustained permanent and disabling spinal cord injuries. The complaint

Case 1:05-cv-00303-LJO-DLB Document 32 Filed 08/29/05 Page 1 of 3
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

alleges causes of action for strict liability, negligence, breach of warranties and loss of

consortium. 

Defendant filed its answer on April 7, 2005. The Court issued its Scheduling Conference

Order on June 17, 2005.

Counsel filed the instant motion to withdraw as Plaintiffs’ attorneys of record on July 22,

2005, along with a stipulation and proposed order to continue discovery deadlines. On July 26,

2005, the Court continued the due date for outstanding discovery (Plaintiffs’ Request for

Production and Defendant’s Interrogatories and Request for Production) to September 23, 2005. 

Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants have filed an opposition.

DISCUSSION

Local Rule 83-182(d) provides:

Subject to the provisions of subsection (c), 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 persons who have appeared. 

The attorney shall provide an affidavit stating the current or last known address of

addresses of the client and the 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

withdrawal may be granted subject to such appropriate conditions as the Court

deems fit.

Local Rule 83-182(d).

Where withdrawal from a case is not mandatory under the Rules of Professional conduct,

an attorney must ordinarily continue representation despite a case becoming unpleasant or

unprofitable. However, the attorney may withdraw, with court permission, where the client

“insists upon presenting a claim or defense that is not warranted under the existing law and

cannot be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of

existing law.” CRPC 3-700(C)(1). 

Here, Counsel contend that irreconcilable differences have arisen, causing an irreparable

breakdown of the attorney-client relationship and rendering it impossible for Counsel to continue

to represent Plaintiffs. Citing the attorney-client privilege, Counsel generally state that Plaintiffs

refuse to consider and/or follow the advice of Counsel and are not cooperating with Counsel. 

Case 1:05-cv-00303-LJO-DLB Document 32 Filed 08/29/05 Page 2 of 3
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

Counsel further indicate that Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion and are actively seeking

new counsel. Declaration of Daniel Rodriguez, at ¶ 5; Declaration of W. Randolph Barnhart, at ¶

5. 

Good cause appearing, Counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney for Plaintiffs is

HEREBY GRANTED. Daniel Rodriguez, Joel T. Andreeson and Charles R. Chapman of

Rodriguez & Associates and W. Randolph Barnhart, Michael J. McNally and Angela L. Ekker of

Barnhart, Ekker & McNally, LLP are relieved as attorneys of record. 

Plaintiffs Shoukat Khan and Sanober Mirza are substituted in their place appearing pro

se. Plaintiffs’ mailing address is: 

Shoukat Khan and Sanober Mirza 

2897 E. Salem Avenue

Fresno, California 93720. 

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter the change of address on the Court’s

docket and records. Plaintiffs should notify the Court as soon as new counsel is obtained given

the September 23, 2005, due date for outstanding discovery. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 26, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00303-LJO-DLB Document 32 Filed 08/29/05 Page 3 of 3