Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00141/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00141-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bren Sarver
Plaintiff
The City of Bakersfield
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

On July 11, 2014, attorneys Mark Adams and John Briscoe from the Law Office of Mayall 

Hurley, P.C., filed a motion to withdraw as attorneys of record for Plaintiff Bren Sarver. (Doc. 15.) 

For the following reasons, the motion to withdraw is GRANTED. 

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his complaint on February 3, 2014, asserting the City of 

Bakersfield (“the City”) is liable for disability discrimination; failure to engage in the interactive 

process; retaliation for, and interference with, his taking protected medical leave; retaliation for 

Plaintiff’s opposition to unlawful conduct; and failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation. (See 

generally Doc. 1.) The City filed its answer to the complaint on February 28, 2014. (Doc. 6.) The 

Court entered its Scheduling Order on May 19, 2014, setting the deadline for non-expert discovery as 

March 3, 2015, and the completion of expert discovery as April 22, 2015. (Doc. 9 at 1.) Further, the 

trial date was set for November 17, 2015. (Id.)

BREN SARVER,

 Plaintiff,

v.

THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00141- JLT 

ORDER GRANTING COUNSELS’ MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD

(Doc. 15)

Case 1:14-cv-00141-JLT Document 23 Filed 01/09/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

On December 3, 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel filed the motion now pending before the Court, 

seeking to withdraw as counsel. (Doc. 15.) To date, neither Plaintiff nor the City has opposed the 

motion to withdraw. In addition, the City has stipulated to the extension of discovery deadlines and the 

continuance of the trial date. (Doc. 16-3 at 2-3.)

II. Discussion and Analysis

Withdrawal of counsel is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of 

California, and the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. See

LR 182. The withdrawal of representation is permitted under the Rules of Professional Conduct if a 

client “renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry our employment effectively.” Cal. 

R.P.C. 3-700(C)(1)(d). Local Rule 182(d) provides:

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. 

Id. Likewise, California’s Rules require the notice of motion and declaration to be served on the client 

and other parties who have appeared in the case. CRC 3.1362(d). 

The decision to grant withdrawal is within the discretion of the Court, and leave “may be 

granted subject to such appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit.” LR 182; see also Canandaigua 

Wine Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, 2009 WL 989141, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009) (“The decision to grant 

or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial court.”). Factors the 

Court may consider include: (1) the reasons for withdrawal, (2) prejudice that may be caused to the 

other litigants, (3) harm caused to the administration of justice; and (4) delay to the resolution of the 

case caused by withdrawal. Id., 2009 WL 989141, at *1-2. 

Here, Mark Adams and John Briscoe assert they are unable to continue to representation 

because there is “an irreparable conflict of interest between . . . counsel and Plaintiff that renders 

effective representation impossible.” (Doc. 17 at 2.) According to Mr. Briscoe, he sent a letter to 

Plaintiff on November 14, 2014, “suggesting that he obtain a new attorney immediately.” (Doc. 16 at 

2, Briscoe Decl. ¶ 2.) In addition, Mr. Briscoe sent a “Consent to Substitution form” to Plaintiff on 

November 17, 2014, requesting that “Plaintiff and his new attorney execute and return the form.” (Id., 

Case 1:14-cv-00141-JLT Document 23 Filed 01/09/15 Page 2 of 4
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.) Plaintiff did not respond to either letter, and his counsel “received no indication that Plaintiff has 

obtained new counsel or attempted to do so.” (Id., ¶ 4.) The declaration and proof of service indicate 

clearly that all parties, including Plaintiff, were served with the documents required by the California 

Rules. Plaintiff did not file any opposition the motion, thereby indicating his consent to the 

withdrawal. Further, Plaintiff failed to appear at the hearing on the motion to withdraw. As a result, 

there is no indication Plaintiff seeks to continue to prosecute this action.

III. Conclusion and Order

Mark Adams and John Briscoe followed the procedural and substantive requirements set forth 

in the California Rules of Professional Conduct and the Local Rules in filing the motion to withdraw 

as Plaintiff’s attorneys, and set forth sufficient reasons for the withdrawal. Therefore, the Court is 

acting within its discretion to grant the motion to withdraw. See LR 182. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The motion to withdraw is GRANTED and Mark Adams, John Briscoe and the Law 

Office of Mayall Hurley, P.C. are relieved from representation in this matter;

2. The Clerk’s Office SHALL TERMINATE Mark Adams and John Briscoe as “Lead 

Attorneys to be Noticed” for Plaintiff in the Court docket, and update the docket to 

reflect Plaintiff now appearing pro se and his last known contact information as 

follows:

Bren Sarver

3313 Herndon Street

Bakersfield, CA 93312

3. Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause in writing within 21 days of the date of service 

of this order, why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute this 

action. Failure to comply with this order will result in the matter being dismissed 

pursuant to Local Rule 110;

///

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-00141-JLT Document 23 Filed 01/09/15 Page 3 of 4
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. The request to modify the deadlines set forth in the scheduling order is deferred until 

the Court can determine whether Plaintiff intends to prosecute this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00141-JLT Document 23 Filed 01/09/15 Page 4 of 4