Opinion ID: 4528262
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bacharach’s First Motion to Withdraw

Text: On December 7, 2016, Portnoy, in his capacity as the personal representative of his father’s estate, sued the United States for negligent injury and wrongful death stemming from his father’s death at a VA hospital in 2012. Portnoy alleged that the VA hospital’s negligence during his father’s surgery resulted in a bacterial infection, and that infection caused his death. Portnoy’s original complaint brought two claims for relief pursuant to the FTCA: wrongful death (Count I) and personal injury damages (Count II). In its answer, the government denied Portnoy’s allegations and raised several defenses, including that Portnoy failed to state a claim, and that the applicable provisions of the FWDA limited any available damages. On October 20, 2017, the district court ordered Portnoy to show cause as to why his claim for personal injury damages (Count II) should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.1 After the district court granted Portnoy two extensions of 1 The FTCA provides district courts with jurisdiction over civil actions against the United States for money damages for personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act of a government employee. The United States can be held liable under the FTCA “in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred,” which in this case is Florida. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). The FWDA, as the district court explained, “eliminates a claim for the 3 Case: 19-10358 Date Filed: 04/23/2020 Page: 4 of 20 time in which to respond to the court’s order, on November 8, 2017, Portnoy’s attorney, N. Albert Bacharach, filed a response to the show-cause order. Bacharach explained that Portnoy was “refusing to take counsel’s advise [sic] and [was] refusing to authorize [Bacharach] to respond with a legal position that takes the provable facts in this matter into account and to set forth a comprehensive legal argument in this matter.” That same day, Bacharach moved for leave to withdraw from representation pursuant to Rule 11.1(H) of the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (“Local Rule 11.1(H)”), which allows withdrawal only with the permission of the district court. He claimed that “[d]espite frequent communication between Plaintiff Portnoy and undersigned counsel and his staff, numerous issues have arisen between Plaintiff Portnoy and the undersigned counsel regarding undersigned counsel’s representation of Plaintiff.” Bacharach further stated that “Plaintiff Portnoy no longer has confidence in undersigned counsel and no longer believes the undersigned is acting in his best interest.” Specifically, Portnoy believed Bacharach was “in collusion with the Veterans Administrations and the U.S. Attorney’s Office.” Bacharach also indicated that decedent’s personal injury from the date of the injury to the date of death when the claim is brought with a wrongful death claim.” The district court was therefore concerned that Portnoy was “attempting to bring a personal injury action in Count II that, under Florida law, is eliminated by the wrongful death action in Count I.” 4 Case: 19-10358 Date Filed: 04/23/2020 Page: 5 of 20 Portnoy had been in contact with the Florida Bar and other attorneys regarding the case and that Portnoy no longer believed that Bacharach was acting in his best interest. Thus, Bacharach stated that he could no longer effectively represent Portnoy and requested leave to withdraw from representation. On November 15, 2017, the district court held a hearing on Bacharach’s motion for leave to withdraw. During the hearing, Bacharach stated that Portnoy’s lack of confidence in his representation was the “underlying issue,” as evidenced by Portnoy’s “repeated” calls to the Florida Bar to complain about him and Portnoy’s conversations with other attorneys about Bacharach mishandling the case. Portnoy explained that his chief qualm was that Bacharach was moving too slowly and Bacharach was “exaggerating about calling the Florida Bar all the time.” The district court expressed concerns about whether Portnoy would be able to proceed pro se as the representative of his father’s estate should it allow Bacharach to withdraw. Further, if the law did not allow Portnoy to proceed pro se, the court observed, and Portnoy could not find another attorney, then Portnoy might be prejudiced by the withdrawal. The district court denied the motion to withdraw without prejudice and instead gave Portnoy an opportunity to file an amended complaint. On November 27, 2017, Portnoy filed an amended complaint, asserting similar claims: “Wrongful 5 Case: 19-10358 Date Filed: 04/23/2020 Page: 6 of 20 Death” (Count I) and “Survival Action” (Count II). 2 On December 22, 2017, the government answered the amended complaint consistent with its original answer.