Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01214/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01214-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Bradford
Plaintiff
City of Modesto
Defendant
Robert Hart
Defendant
Carlos Ramirez
Defendant
Dave Ramirez
Defendant

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

MICHAEL J. BRADFORD, )

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CITY OF MODESTO, a municipal )

corporation; OFFICER ROBERT HART, )

an individual; OFFICER DAVE RAMIREZ,)

an individual, OFFICER CARLOS )

RAMIREZ, an individual; and DOES 1 )

through 50, inclusive )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

CV F 06-cv-1214 AWI GSA

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD 

(Document 20)

INTRODUCTION

Jeffrey M. Hubbins, Plaintiff’s counsel of record, filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

(“motion”) on June 3, 2008. Doc. 20. Attached to the motion is a declaration filed by Jeffrey

Hubbins, which contains a consent to the withdrawal signed by Plaintiff Michael Bradford

(“Plaintiff”). In the consent, Plaintiff indicates that he will be proceeding pro per unless, or

until, he obtains legal representation. 

On June 19, 2008, Defendants City of Modesto, Officer Robert Hart, Officer David

Ramirez, and Officer Carlos Ramirez (“Defendants”) also filed a non-opposition to the motion. 

Doc. 26. Given the non-opposition of all of the parties, the Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel is

GRANTED and the hearing scheduled for July 18, 2008 at 9:30 is VACATED. 

Case 1:06-cv-01214-OWW -GSA Document 28 Filed 07/03/08 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

On the same day that Defendants filed their non-opposition, Defendants also filed a

Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 25) which is currently scheduled for August 4, 2008 at

1:30 pm before the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii. Doc. 25. It is unclear whether Plaintiff has

been informed of the pending motion. As such, Plaintiff shall be served a copy of the Motion for

Summary Judgment, as well as other documents as set forth in this order. Plaintiff shall file his

reply to the Motion for Summary Judgment, or alternatively, a request for an extension, no later

than July 18, 2008.

FACTS

This action was removed from Stanislaus County Superior Court on September 6, 2006. 

Plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Defendants. The

complaint arises out of a shooting incident which occurred on June 29, 2004, in which Plaintiff

was injured. According to the complaint, Plaintiff fled into a backyard during a pursuit by

police. Defendants Officers Dave Ramirez, Carlos Ramirez, and Robert Hart discovered

Plaintiff’s location and demanded that he surrender. Plaintiff alleges he complied with officers’

requests and raised his hands. Despite his compliance, Plaintiff alleges he was repeatedly shot at

by Defendants and was hit in the chest with a bullet. The complaint alleges eleven causes of

action against Defendants based on assault and battery, excessive force, violations of Article 1, §

7, Article 1 §17, and Article 1 §13 of the California Constitution, intentional infliction of

emotional distress, negligence, negligent hiring and retention, and violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

based on deprivation of liberty without due process and unlawful seizure.

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 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 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.

Case 1:06-cv-01214-OWW -GSA Document 28 Filed 07/03/08 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

 Plaintiff’s counsel has filed the Motion to Withdraw because in the course of the

investigation of this case, evidence surfaced which appears to defeat Plaintiff’s theories of

liability. Counsel believes that his continued representation and prosecution of the case would

result in violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(a), the Business and

Professions Code § 6068, and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(a) provides that an attorney may request

withdrawal 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 extension, modification, or

reversal of existing law. Rule 3-700(A)(2) also provides that a “member shall not withdraw from

employment until the member has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable

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

employment of other counsel, complying with rule 3-700(D), and complying with applicable

laws and rules.” 

In this case, counsel asserts that there will be minimal prejudice to Plaintiff since written

discovery has been completed and any remaining depositions can be scheduled quickly. 

Furthermore, any expert discovery required should not warrant a lengthy delay. Moreover,

counsel has provided Plaintiff with the proper notice and Plaintiff has consented to the

withdrawal. A plaintiff’s request that counsel be permitted to withdraw supports granting the

motion. See, Bowman v. Thurston County Corr. Facility , 2005 WL 2090671 (W.D. Wash. Aug.

30, 2005). Finally, given the potential professional ethical conflicts if representation were to

continue, counsel has demonstrated good cause for withdrawal. 

Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that :

1) The Motion to Withdraw as Counsel is GRANTED and the hearing scheduled for July

18, 2008 at 9:30 am is VACATED;

2) The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to RELIEVE Jeffrey M. Hubins and the law

firm of Schauman and Hubins as counsel of record for Plaintiff and SUBSTITUTE Plaintiff,

 ///

///

Case 1:06-cv-01214-OWW -GSA Document 28 Filed 07/03/08 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

appearing pro se, listing Plaintiff’s address as follows :

USP Lee County 

P.O. Box 305

Jonesville, Virginia 24263

3) The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to serve Plaintiff with the following documents

at the address listed above :

a) A copy of this order;

b) A copy of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed on June 19, 2008

(Doc. 25);

c) A copy the docket sheet associated with this case;

d) A copy of Local Rule § 78-230;

e) Copies of two informational orders issued contemporaneously with this order. 

4) Plaintiff shall file a reply to Defendant’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment, or

alternatively, request for an extension of time to reply, no later than July 18, 2008; and

5) Counsel Jeffrey M. Hubins shall inform the court if Plaintiff’s address listed above has

changed, and if so, counsel shall provide the court with Plaintiff’s correct address forthwith. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: July 3, 2008 Gary S. Austin

The Honorable Gary S. Austin

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:06-cv-01214-OWW -GSA Document 28 Filed 07/03/08 Page 4 of 4