Borrego Community Health Foundation v. Hebets
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
Counsel for Defendant Karen Hebets moved for leave to withdraw, citing the client's consent and subsequent formal termination of the attorney-client relationship. The court granted the motion, ordered the docket updated to reflect that the defendant is proceeding pro se, and directed service to her provided address.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion of McKenzie Scott PC for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel for Karen Hebets is granted.“Accordingly, counsel’s Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(a)(4), which mandates withdrawal when a client discharges a lawyer. The record establishes that the client consented to withdrawal and subsequently formally terminated the relationship in writing. The court's reliance on Roberts v. Ford Motor Co. to establish that state professional conduct rules govern withdrawal in federal court is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent (e.g., In re Marriage of Haines, 199 Cal. App. 4th 125 (2012) or similar S.D. Cal. authority). The decision follows logically from the cited rule and the factual declarations provided. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate state rule of professional conduct. It relies on a recent district court case (Roberts) to establish the governing standard, which is a common and acceptable practice in district court orders, though citing a binding circuit authority or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 11) might be more robust. However, for a simple withdrawal based on client discharge, the reasoning is sufficient and the result is defensible.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BORREGO COMMUNITY HEALTH Case No.: 3:22-cv-01056-RBM-SBC FOUNDATION, a California Nonprofit 12 Public Benefit Corporation, ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE 13 MOTION AND MOTION OF Plaintiff, MCKENZIE SCOTT PC FOR 14 LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS v. 15 COUNSEL FOR KAREN HEBETS KAREN HEBETS, et. al., 16 [Doc. 275] 17 Defendants. 18 19 On December 20, 2024, counsel for Defendant Karen Hebets filed an Ex Parte 20 Motion and Motion of Mckenzie Scott PC for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel for Karen 21 Hebets (“Motion to Withdraw”). (Doc. 275.) In its Motion to Withdraw, Defendant 22 Hebets’ counsel requests “an order granting leave to withdraw as counsel for defendant 23 Karen Hebets in this matter.” (Id. at 1.) Defendant Hebets’ counsel indicates that 24 Defendant Hebets has consented to its withdrawal. (Id.; see also Doc. 275-2 at 2, 25 Declaration of Karen Hebets [“Hebets Decl.”] ¶ 7.) 26 On February 19, 2025, counsel for Defendant Hebets filed a Supplemental Notice of 27 Termination in Support of its Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. (Doc. 283.) Counsel for 28 Defendant Hebets also filed a Supplemental Declaration of Marcus Bourassa in Support of 1 || Motion of Mckenzie Scott PC for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel for Karen Hebets (“Supp. 2 ||Bourassa Decl.”). (Doc. 283-1.) In his Supplemental Declaration, counsel Marcus 3 || Bourassa declared, “[o]n February 18, 2025, [Defendant] Karen Hebets notified me and 4 || Timothy Scott in writing that she has formally terminated our attorney-client relationship 5 representation in this matter, effective February 18, 2025.” (Supp. Bourassa Decl. 6 7 “Withdrawal of counsel is governed by the standards of professional conduct 8 required of members of the State Bar of California.” Roberts v. Ford Motor Co., Case No.: 9 || 24-cv-1424-WQH-DDL, 2024 WL 4257648, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2024) (quotation 10 omitted). California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(a)(4) provides, “‘a lawyer shall not 11 |/represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the 12 ||representation of a client if ... the client discharges the lawyer.” Here, Defendant Hebets 13 || discharged her counsel. Accordingly, counsel’s Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED. The 14 ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to update the docket to indicate that Defendant 15 ||Hebets is proceeding pro se and can be served at PO Box 2104, Borrego Springs, CA 16 ||92004. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || DATE: February 20, 2025 19 ermal, We tery □□ 20 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ' MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28