Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01184/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01184-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City Of Fresno
Defendant
Greg Occhionero
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

GREG OCCHIONERO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

CITY OF FRESNO, )

)

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:05-cv-1184-AWI-SMS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS

ATTORNEY OF RECORD (DOC. 33)

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO

UPDATE THE DOCKET TO REFLECT

PLAINTIFF’S PRO SE STATUS AND

ADDRESS

INFORMATIONAL ORDER TO PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff is proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(1) and 72-303.

Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on September 16, 2005. 

The Court has reviewed the motion to withdraw as attorney of

record for Plaintiff filed by Charles L. Doerksen, Plaintiff’s

attorney, on October 6, 2006, served electronically on counsel

for Defendant and served by mail upon Plaintiff. The motion

includes a declaration of attorney Doerksen. Neither Plaintiff

nor Defendant has filed any opposition or other response to the

motion. By separate orders, the Court initially vacated the

Case 1:05-cv-01184-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 11/07/06 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

hearing on the motion due to clerical error but thereafter

vacated that order, further determined that the motion is

appropriately heard on the papers alone, and deemed the matter

submitted to the Court for decision.

Attorney Doerksen declares that on October 6, 2006,

Plaintiff Greg Occhionero was notified in writing and by service

by mail of the decision to withdraw and of the bringing of this

motion. Plaintiff’s name, address, and telephone number are

stated in the moving papers.

I. Motion to Withdraw

The grounds of the motion are a conflict concerning

fundamental differences regarding how the action is to be

handled, and a personality clash in the attorney-client

relationship. Doerksen declares that a breakdown has occurred; he

has discussed his desire to withdraw with Plaintiff, and he

understands that Plaintiff will not oppose the motion. 

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, Plaintiff’s address is 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 the

requirements of those Rules. 

Case 1:05-cv-01184-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 11/07/06 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

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.

Here, Doerksen has established the breakdown in the

attorney-client relationship; thus, grounds for withdrawal exist.

He has notified the client of the instant motion in writing.

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

were served on October 6, 2006, on Plaintiff at the address

given. Warren has provided the address and telephone number of

the client.

 A scheduling conference is presently set for January 10,

2007, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7 before the Honorable Sandra M.

Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge. The parties have been

directed to file a new joint scheduling conference report one

week prior to the scheduling conference.

Because the moving attorney has shown grounds for withdrawal

and has complied with the applicable rules, the motion of

attorney Charles L. Doerksen to withdraw as attorney for

Plaintiff IS GRANTED.

II. Updating the Docket

Because the withdrawal of counsel results in Plaintiff’s

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

Case 1:05-cv-01184-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 11/07/06 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

TO UPDATE the docket to reflect Plaintiff’s pro se status; his

last known address of 757 Laverne Avenue, Clovis, California

93611; and his telephone number of (559) 292-9210.

III. Informational Order to Plaintiff

Plaintiff IS INFORMED that failure to take appropriate legal

action may result in serious legal consequences, and

consideration of obtaining legal assistance is strongly advised.

Plaintiff is further advised that regardless of whether or

not Plaintiff is represented by counsel, Plaintiff will be

expected to comply with all the requirements and deadlines stated

in the Court’s order of October 20, 2006, including appearing

personally (unless Plaintiff has previously retained counsel who

has substituted in as counsel of record) at the scheduling

conference presently set for January 10, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., and

further cooperating in preparing a joint scheduling conference

statement due to be filed one week before the scheduling

conference. 

Further, Plaintiff will be expected to 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 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: November 6, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01184-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 11/07/06 Page 4 of 4