Jackson v. City of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion by plaintiff's counsel to withdraw from the case. The court denied the motion because counsel failed to file a declaration proving service on the client, as required by Local Civil Rule 83.3(f)(3), and vacated the scheduled hearing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to withdraw as Plaintiff's counsel denied“Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to withdraw for failing to file a declaration indicating that her client has been served with the motion in violation of Local Civil Rule 83.3(f)(3).” | agree with court The order recites that Local Civil Rule 83.3(f)(3) mandates that failure to file the required declaration of service 'will result in a denial of the motion.' The court found that counsel's declaration only proved e-filing with the court, not service on the client, and noted the client's address was not on the docket. Applying the local rule's mandatory language to the recited facts leads directly to the denial. |
Hearing set for November 1, 2019 vacated“The hearing set for November 1, 2019 shall be vacated.” | agree with court The court exercised its inherent and local rule-based authority to manage its docket. Since the motion to withdraw was denied, the specific hearing associated with that motion (or the status of the case pending withdrawal) was vacated as a procedural consequence. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the local rule requirement for service on the client and the mandatory consequence of non-compliance (denial). The court recites the specific deficiency in the filing (lack of declaration of service on the client) and applies the rule directly. While the court lists general factors for withdrawal motions, it relies on the specific local rule violation to deny the motion, which is a valid and efficient basis for the ruling.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERNEST JACKSON, Case No.: 19CV767-GPC(WVG)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. WITHDRAW AS PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL 14 CITY OF SAN DIEGO; COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, and DOES 1-25, inclusive, 15 [Dkt. No. 13.] Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court is a motion to withdraw as Plaintiff’s counsel for Plaintiff Ernest 18 Jackson. (Dkt. No. 13.) Defendant City of San Diego filed a non-opposition to the 19 motion to withdraw. (Dkt. No. 18.) Based on the reasoning below, the Court DENIES 20 motion to withdraw as Plaintiff’s counsel. 21 Discussion 22 “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” Darby v. 23 City of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992). The trial court has discretion 24 whether to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw in a civil case. See La Grand 25 v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998); Stewart v. Boeing Co., No. CV 12-5621 26 RSWL(AGRx), 2013 WL 3168269, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2013). Courts should 27 consider the following factors when ruling upon a motion to withdraw as counsel: (1) the 28 1 |/reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other 2 || litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the 3 degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case. Curtis v. IJumination 4 || Arts, Inc., No. C12-0991JLR, 2014 WL 556010, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 12, 2014); Deal 5 || v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. C09-01643 SBA, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 6 || Sept. 15, 2010). 7 Local Civil Rule 83.3(f)(3) also provides: 8 Withdrawals. (a) A notice of motion to withdraw as attorney of record must 9 be served on the adverse party and on the moving attorney's client. (b) A declaration pertaining to such service must be filed. Failure to make 10 service as required by this section or to file the required declaration of ll service will result in a denial of the motion. 12 Local Civil R. 83.3(f)(3) (emphasis added). Counsel recognizes that a motion to 13 withdraw as counsel must be served on the adverse parties and the moving counsel’s client, (Dkt. No. 13-1 at 2'), yet counsel did not file a declaration that her client, Plaintiff IS Ernest Jackson, has been served with the motion. Counsel’s declaration and proof of 16 service filed with the Court only states that she e-filed the motion through the Court’s M7 electronic filing system but her client’s address is not on the docket for this case. (Dkt. 18 No. 13-3.) 19 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to withdraw for failing to file a 20 declaration indicating that her client has been served with the motion in violation of 7 Local Civil Rule 83.3(f)(3). The hearing set for November 1, 2019 shall be vacated. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: October 21, 2019 2 aaho Ox Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 25 United States District Judge 26 27 || ————_______- 28 Page numbers are based on the CM/ECF pagination.