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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CARL MEALING,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF RIDGEFIELD, WASHINGTON;

RIDGEFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT;

RIDGEFIELD POLICE CHIEF BRUCE

HALL; BRUCE HALL in his individual

capacity; RIDGEFIELD CITY MANAGER

GEORGE FOX, and GEORGE FOX in his

individual capacity,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5778FDB

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM TIMELINES and 

RESERVING RULING ON MOTION

TO WITHDRAW PENDING

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL OR

NOTICE THAT PLAINTIFF IS

PROCEEDING PRO SE

Plaintiff moves for relief from the Court’s Minute Order Scheduling Jury Trial and Pretrial

Dates in this case, and seeks a nine-month extension of all deadlines, including the March 9, 2007

deadline for Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants City of Ridgefield’s and Bruce Hall’s Motions for

Summary Judgment. 

This case asserts a charge of wrongful discharge from the Ridgefield Police Department

based on race. Defendant City of Ridgefield contends, among other things, that Mealing was

terminated after multiple complaints about his on-duty behavior towards women, which arose from

citizens and other agencies, and that he failed to follow the notice of claim statute. 

Case 3:05-cv-05778-FDB Document 75 Filed 01/31/07 Page 1 of 6
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 ORDER - 2

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s counsel, Jay W. Trumble, in addition to moving for a continuance, has moved to

withdraw for the reason that he has accepted employment with a private employer, the Association

of Fight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO (AFA) with a starting date of January 15, 2007. Mr. Trumble

has stated that he has discharged his office staff, and that the effective date of closure was December

29, 2006 at the close of business. Mr. Trumble filed an amended motion to withdraw on January 15,

2007 [Dkt. # 66]. Mr. Trumble indicates that prospective substituting counsel have expressed

reluctance to accept his case without sufficient time to investigate and prepare. Mr. Trumble states

that Plaintiff’s potential substituting attorney, Therese Lavallee has undertaken a review of limited

documents and has determined two things: (1) she cannot appear for Mealing at this time under the

current deadlines, and (2) she believes that in order to sufficiently prepare for both defense of the

pending summary judgment motions and the scheduled 20-day trial, a nine-month continuance is

necessary. Another potential associating counsel, Scott Blankenship, has previously scheduled trials

that conflict with the trial date presently set in this matter and that he could not consider taking this

case without a continuance of the current pretrial and trial dates. 

Defendants City of Ridgefiled, Police Chief Bruce Hall, and Ridgefield City Manager George

Fox object to a continuance. Defendants note that since the City noted its summary judgment

motion on January 19, 2007, Plaintiff has filed three separate motions within the time frame that his

response was originally due: Motion for Counsel to Withdraw, Motion Requesting 90-Day

Extension to respond to the City’s summary judgment motion, and the present Motion for Relief

from Timelines requesting a nine-month continuance of all deadlines. Defendants point out that all

parties, including Pliantiff’s prospective new counsel Ms. LaVallee, ultimately stipulated to the

withdrawal of Plaintiff’s counsel and to a seven-week extension for responding to the City’s

summary judgment motion to enable new counsel to familiarize herself with the case and respond to

both scheduled motions. Then, a week after this stipulation was signed, the current motion for a

Case 3:05-cv-05778-FDB Document 75 Filed 01/31/07 Page 2 of 6
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 ORDER - 3

nine-month continuance was filed. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s time could have been spent on

the summary judgment motions rather than filing the various motions for continuance. Moreover,

citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not demonstrated any specific rebuttal

information that he believes he could obtain with such a lengthy continuance, and he has engaged in

only minimal discovery efforts throughout this case, much of the discovery being initiated by other

parties. 

CONCLUSION

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions and the record herein, the Court cannot conclude

that Plaintiff has been diligent with respect to prosecution of this case or his obligations with respect

the opposing parties’ motions, or with respect to the need to obtain new counsel. Plaintiff’s request

for a continuance is unwarranted and a nine-month continuance under the circumstances of this case

is undeniably excessive. Counsel has had weeks to prepare for the summary judgment motions, and

still has more than a month left to prepare under the current schedule that was agreed to by the

parties. 

Fed. R. Civ. P 56 (f) provides as follows: 

Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the [summary judgment]

motion that the party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to

justify the party’s opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or

may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken

or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just. 

“To prevail under this Rule, parties opposing a motion for summary judgment must make ‘(a) a

timely application which (b) specifically identifies (c) relevant information, (d) where there is some

basis for believing that the information sought actually exists.’” Employers Teamsters Local Nos.

175 and 505 Pension Trust Fund v. Clorox Co., 353 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff has

failed to identify the specific information required under the rule. 

Also, there is no right to representation in civil cases. Nicholson v. Rushon, 767 F.2d 1426,

1427 (9th Cir. 1985). And see U.S. v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 938-940 (9th Cir. 1986)(denying

Case 3:05-cv-05778-FDB Document 75 Filed 01/31/07 Page 3 of 6
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 ORDER - 4

request for continuance where movant had been aware of need to obtain counsel for several months

but had failed to do so). An attorney’s withdrawal does not afford a party an automatic right to a

continuance. Mekdeci v. Merrell Nat. Laboratories, 711 F.2d 1510, 1522-23 (11th Cir. 1983). In

Mekdeci, the court refused the request for a continuance where the Plaintiff’s counsel moved to

withdraw, there was prospective substitute counsel who conditioned his representation upon a sixmonth continuance of the trial that was at the time five months away. The court stated: 

In effect, the [new] firm presented the trial court with an unconditional demand. 

Under the circumstances of this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

refusing to accede to that demand .... The pendency of the original attorneys’ motion

to withdraw, at the time the [new] firm requested the continuance, does not alter that

conclusion. In a civil case, a lawyer’s withdrawal, much less a mere motion to

withdraw, does not afford the party an absolute right to a continuance. ... [E]ven the

legitimate need for preparation does not translate into an unconditional right to set

one’s own trial date. 

Mekdeci, 711 F.2d at 1520 and n. 12. 

The Complaint in this case was filed December 5, 2005. The Minute Order Setting Trial and

Pretrial Dates was entered May 16, 2006 setting, among other things, a Jury Trial for September 10,

2007, Discovery cut-off date of May 14, 2007, and a Motions deadline of June 1, 2007. 

Plaintiff’s attorney, Jay Trumble, states in his declaration that his employment negotiations

with the AFA had been ongoing since late September 2006, and the terms of his employment were

memorialized verbally on December 18, 2006. Trumble indicates that he kept Plaintiff Mealing

informed of the circumstances and that he would be closing his practice, but Mealing did not request

that he withdraw or find substitute counsel. Trumble met with prospective counsel Therese LaValle

on December 28, 2006 to discuss her possible substitution, and at that time, a 90-day continuance

was thought to be required. 

On December 18, 2006, the Defendants City of Ridgefield and Ridgefield Police Department

filed their summary judgment motion. 

On December 27, 2006, Trumble filed his motion to withdraw.

Case 3:05-cv-05778-FDB Document 75 Filed 01/31/07 Page 4 of 6
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 ORDER - 5

On December 28, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Order for Englargement of Time seeking

a 90-day continuance of the deadline for filing a response to the City of Ridgefield’s motion. 

On December 28, 2006, Defendant Bruce Hall filed a motion for summary judgment.

On January 4, 2007, the parties filed a stipulation regarding a continuance of the noting date

for the City of Ridgefield’s and Hall’s summary judgment motions to March 9, 2007 and that

responses would be filed and served on March 5, 2007, and replies due March 9, 2007. The parties

agreed to confer regarding any additional discovery requests in order to limit the cost of ongoing

discovery and to permit the parties to confer about the least costly means of addressing discovery

matters. This stipulation was filed by all parties, and attached to the Stipulation as page 4 was a

letter from prospective counsel Therese LaVallee to the undersigned judge regarding this case

stating: 

Please be advised that I am prepared to enter a Notice of Appearance on behalf of

Carl Mealing and to substitute as counsel for Mr. Trumble in the event Your Honor

grants the Proposed Order Granting Continuance for Motions for Summary Judgment

and Discovery. 

The Court signed and entered an Order on the Stipulation on January 5, 2007 granting the

continuance in accordance with the Stipulation among the parties, and the pending summary

judgment motions at Docket No. 53 and 57 were renoted for March 9, 2007. Ms. LaValee,

however, did not appear. 

On January 15, 2007, Plaintiff brought the instant motion for relief from timelines. Plaintiff

asserts that although the foregoing stipulation was entered into after prospective counsel LaVallee

had undertaken a review of “limited documents,” now that she has learned that the case file in its

entirety totals in excess of seven file storage boxes and the number of factual and legal issues, she has

determined that she cannot appear under the current deadlines and requires a nine-month

continuance. Counsel Trumble also refiled his motion to withdraw, incorrectly styling it a motion to

amend, and renoting the earlier motion to withdraw to January 25, 2007. 

Case 3:05-cv-05778-FDB Document 75 Filed 01/31/07 Page 5 of 6
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 ORDER - 6

Under the circumstances of this case, the Court declines to grant a continuance. The March

9, 2007 noting date will stand, and Plaintiff’s responses to the motions are due as set forth in the

Court’s order on the parties’ stipulation, that is, March 5, 2007. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Timelines [Dkt. # 60] is DENIED; the March 9,

2007 noting date for the motions will stand, responses are due March 5, 2007, and

replies are due March 9, 2007;

2. Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion for Withdrawal [Dkt. # 54] and his wrongly denominated

Motion to Amend Motion for Withdrawal [# 66], which actually renotes the previous

motion for withdrawal, is DENIED until either new counsel appears or Plaintiff

advises the Court in writing that he will proceed pro se, and such APPEARANCE OR

NOTICE IS DUE no later than Monday, February 5, 2007. 

DATED this 31st day of January 2007.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05778-FDB Document 75 Filed 01/31/07 Page 6 of 6