Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01558/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01558-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Joseph Luise Mckenny
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH LUISE MCKENNY, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-01558-SKO

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY OF 

RECORD

(Doc. 17)

I. INTRODUCTION

On June 27, 2016, Denise Haley, counsel for Plaintiff Joseph Luise McKenny (“Plaintiff”), 

filed a Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of record, along with the Declaration of Denise Haley in 

support of the Motion. (Doc. 17.) Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social 

Security (“Defendant”) filed a statement of non-opposition (Doc. 22), and Plaintiff has not 

responded. The matter is therefore deemed unopposed and submitted on the pleadings. 

Upon reviewing the motion and supporting documentation, the Court finds that the matter 

is suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Rule 230(g) of the Local Rules of the 

United States District Court, Eastern District of California (“Local Rules”); as such, the hearing 

set for August 3, 2016, is VACATED. For the reasons set forth below, counsel’s Motion to 

Withdraw is GRANTED.

Case 1:15-cv-01558-SKO Document 31 Filed 08/02/16 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

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record

Moving counsel Denise Haley states that after undertaking representation of Plaintiff in 

September 2015, and reviewing the administrative record, she directed another attorney from her 

firm, Laura Krank, to contact Plaintiff on June 23, 2016,1via telephone to inform him of counsel’s 

opinion that she could not pursue the case on Plaintiff’s behalf. (Declaration of Denise Haley 

(“Haley Decl.”), Doc. 17, at ¶ 3.) Ms. Krank conveyed this information to Plaintiff on June 27, 

2016, and Plaintiff informed her that he did not wish to dismiss and would try to find other 

counsel. (Haley Decl., Doc. 17, at ¶ 3.) At of the time the motion was filed, Plaintiff had not 

advised counsel of the retention of alternative counsel, had not authorized a substitution of 

attorney, nor had he authorized counsel to dismiss the action with or without prejudice. (Haley 

Decl., Doc. 17, ¶ 4.)

Local Rule 182(d) sets forth specific requirements for the withdrawal of counsel where, as 

here, the attorney will leave the client in propria persona, as follows:

Unless otherwise provided herein, 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. The 

attorney shall 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. 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 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.

Here, counsel has complied with the Local Rule. Ms. Haley’s motion includes a Proof of Service 

demonstrating that, on June 27, 2016, counsel mailed a copy of the motion to Plaintiff at 3621 1/2 

Delta Avenue. (Doc. 17, p. 7.) On July 6, 2016, Ms. Haley filed a Proof of Service of the Court’s 

minute order setting the briefing schedule and hearing date on Plaintiff at his current or last known 

address: 2389 S. Lilly Street. (Doc. 23.) Because these addresses were inconsistent, the Court 

ordered counsel to file a supplemental declaration establishing that service of the motion was 

 

1 Counsel’s memorandum of points and authorities repeatedly references dates occurring in June 2015. (See Doc. 17, 

at 3:15-22.) Counsel’s declaration confirms that this is a clerical error and, in fact, the correct year is 2016. (See

Decl. of Denise Haley (“Haley Decl.”), Doc. 17, at ¶ 3.)

Case 1:15-cv-01558-SKO Document 31 Filed 08/02/16 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

made upon Plaintiff at his current or last known address at 2389 S. Lilly Street. (Doc. 24.) Ms. 

Haley filed a declaration explaining that service of the motion was made at an incorrect address, 

and a proof of service that notice of the motion and a copy of the motion had been mailed to 

Plaintiff at 2389 S. Lilly Street on July 15, 2016. (Docs. 25, 27.) The Court continued the hearing 

to allow Plaintiff sufficient time to respond to the motion, and required Plaintiff’s opposition, if 

any, to be filed by no later than July 27, 2016. (Doc. 26; see also Doc. 28 (proof of service of the 

Court’s minute order resetting hearing and setting forth briefing schedule upon Plaintiff).) No 

opposition was timely filed, and the matter was deemed unopposed and submitted upon the 

pleadings. (Doc. 30.) 

Local Rule 182 provides that an attorney may request withdrawal if grounds exist pursuant 

to the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California. See L.R. 182(d) (“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”). Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct, Rule 

3-700(C)(1)(a) provides for withdrawal with the permission of a tribunal if the client “insists upon 

presenting a claim or defense that is not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by 

good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

11(b)(2) provides that by “presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper --

whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it -- an attorney or unrepresented party 

certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an 

inquiry reasonable under the circumstances . . . [that] he claims, defenses, and other legal 

contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, 

modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.” Finally, Cal. Rules Prof. 

Conduct, 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 the existence of good cause for 

withdrawal.”

Here, counsel believes, in good faith, that her continued representation of Plaintiff would 

violate Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). Under Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct, Rule 3-700(C)(1)(a), 

withdrawal is, therefore, permissible. The Court finds and concludes that counsel has established 

Case 1:15-cv-01558-SKO Document 31 Filed 08/02/16 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

grounds for withdrawal. Accordingly, the Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record will be 

GRANTED.

B. Extension of Time to File Plaintiff’s Opening Brief

Local Rule 182(d) provides that “[l]eave to withdraw may be granted subject to such 

appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit.” Pursuant to the Court’s Order on the parties’ 

Stipulation to Extend Time to File Opening Brief entered June 1, 2016 (Doc. 16), Plaintiff’s 

opening brief was due June 26, 2016 -- one day before the filing of the present motion. To allow 

time for Plaintiff to obtain counsel and to file an opening brief, the Court will extend the deadline 

for its filing until September 2, 2016.

The Court notes that upon counsel’s withdrawal, Plaintiff will be proceeding pro se and 

will be responsible for the timely prosecution of the action even if Plaintiff fails to obtain new 

counsel. A failure to comply with an order of the Court, including the deadline for the filing of 

Plaintiff’s opening brief, will result in sanctions, including dismissal of this action. Because 

Plaintiff is now proceeding pro se, the Court will by separate order inform Plaintiff of 

requirements concerning Social Security cases in this Court.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record is GRANTED;

2. Withdrawing counsel SHALL serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff via mail and 

SHALL inform Plaintiff that counsel has withdrawn. Within two (2) days of the 

date of the order, withdrawing counsel SHALL provide the Court with a 

declaration indicating proof of service via mail;

3. The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to RELIEVE Denise Haley, Esq., of the Law 

Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, as counsel for Plaintiff; and

4. Plaintiff’s opening brief SHALL BE FILED no later than September 2, 2016, with

all other deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order (Doc. 5) modified accordingly; 

and

//

Case 1:15-cv-01558-SKO Document 31 Filed 08/02/16 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

5. The Clerk SHALL UPDATE THE DOCKET to reflect Plaintiff’s pro se status and 

Plaintiff’s address of 2389 S. Lilly Street, Fresno, CA 93706, and SHALL SERVE 

this order upon Plaintiff at that address.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01558-SKO Document 31 Filed 08/02/16 Page 5 of 5