Jones v. County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Thomas J. Whelan (author)
Analysis
Attorney Samuel H. Park moved to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Gavin Jones, citing a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship due to the plaintiff's incommunicativeness and failure to appear at hearings. The court granted the motion and ordered the attorney to serve the order on the plaintiff, who was directed to provide his address by June 30, 2020.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Motion to withdraw as counsel granted“For all these reasons, the Court GRANTS Attorney Samuel H. Park’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record for Plaintiff Gavin Jones [Doc. 47]” | abuse of discretion | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for attorney withdrawal in civil cases. The record establishes that the plaintiff failed to cooperate, failed to appear at multiple hearings, and became incommunicative, which constitutes a complete breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. The court also found no prejudice to the administration of justice or other litigants, and the plaintiff did not oppose the motion. The decision follows from the cited authorities and the facts recited. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and applies the appropriate standard of review (discretion). It cites relevant case law and state bar rules to support the finding that the attorney-client relationship had broken down. The court explicitly addresses the factors required for withdrawal (prejudice, harm to justice, delay) and finds them absent. The reasoning is complete and directly answers the motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 GAVIN JONES, et al., Case No.: 18-CV-2729 W (LL)
14 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY’S 15 v. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF GAVIN 16 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., JONES [DOC. 47] 17 Defendants. 18 19 Attorney Samuel H. Park has filed a motion to withdraw as attorney of record for 20 Plaintiff Gavin Jones. The motion is unopposed. 21 “The grant or denial of an attorney’s motion to withdraw in a civil case is a matter 22 addressed to the discretion of the trial court . . . .” Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, 23 Inc., 694 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1982). Factors considered in evaluating the motion 24 are “1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; 2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to 25 other litigants; 3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and 26 4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” CE Resource, 27 Inc. v. Magellan Group, LLC, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D.Cal. 2009) (citing 28 Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, 2009 WL 89141, at *1 (E.D.Cal. 2009)). 1 Attorney Park contends that in late February, the parties discussed and negotiated a 2 tentative settlement agreement. (Park Decl. [Doc. 47-1] ¶ 4.) Jones, however, did not 3 sign the settlement agreement, and thereafter became incommunicative with Attorney 4 Park. (Id. ¶ 5.) Jones then failed to appear at telephonic hearings before Magistrate 5 Judge Linda Lopez on March 26, 2020, April 2, 2020 and April 16, 2020. (Id. ¶ 6.) 6 Attorney Park provided Jones notice of each of these hearings. (Id.) As a result of 7 Jones’s failure to communicate with Attorney Park and failure to cooperate in the 8 prosecution of this litigation, on April 4, 2020 Magistrate Judge Lopez granted 9 Defendants’ application to remove Jones as Guardian Ad Litem for Minor Plaintiffs E.J. 10 and W.J. (See Order [Doc. 46].) Based on these facts, the Court finds Attorney Park has 11 established that there has been a complete breakdown of the attorney-client relationship 12 between him and Jones such that Jones has made it unreasonably difficult for Attorney 13 Park to carry out his representation effectively. See, CA ST RPC Rule 3-700(C)((1)(d). 14 Additionally, there is nothing in the record suggesting that Attorney Park’s 15 withdrawal will prejudice the litigants in this matter, will harm the administration of 16 justice or unduly delay the resolution of this case. Attorney Park has notified and served 17 a copy of this motion on Jones, who was aware of the hearing, yet failed to file any sort 18 of opposition. (Park Decl. ¶ 9; Decl. of Service [Doc. 47-3].) The motion was also 19 served on the Defendants. (Proof of Service [Doc. 47-4].) To date, no opposition to the 20 motion has been filed. 21 For all these reasons, the Court GRANTS Attorney Samuel H. Park’s motion to 22 withdraw as attorney of record for Plaintiff Gavin Jones [Doc. 47] and ORDERS as 23 follows: 24 • Attorney Park shall serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff Jones. 25 • Plaintiff Jones shall provide the Court with his address on or before June 30, 26 2020. 27 // 28 // 1 e Attorney Park shall file proof of service of this order on Plaintiff Jones. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: June 17, 2020 \ 5 Hn. 7 omas J. Whelan 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28