From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wagner v. Posner

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 4, 2013
2:09-CV-03166-KJM-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2013)

Opinion


CLINTON WAGNER, Plaintiff, v. MOSS POSNER, MD, et al., Defendants. No. 2:09-CV-03166-KJM-KJN PS United States District Court, E.D. California. December 4, 2013

          ORDER

          KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

         Candice L. Fields, appointed counsel, and Mark Gallagher, associated counsel, move to withdraw as plaintiff's counsel. The motion is unopposed, and the court decides the matter without argument. For the reasons below, the court GRANTS the motion.

         Withdrawal of counsel is governed by Local Rule 182(d). Under the Rule, an attorney who seeks to withdraw must (1) give notice to the client and all parties who have appeared; (2) comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California; and (3) obtain leave of court. L.R. 182(d). Professional Conduct Rule 3-700(c)(5), the relevant rule, in turn permits withdrawal where a client "knowingly and freely assents to termination of the employment" relationship.

         Here, counsel have met all withdrawal requirements. Concurrent with the filing of the instant motion, counsel have provided notice of the intent to withdraw to both the client, Fields Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 154, and the remaining parties who have appeared, id. ¶ 7. Likewise, because plaintiff, of his own volition, has expressed an "unequivocal intent to terminate counsel and proceed without representation, " id. ¶ 4, he has knowingly and freely assented to termination. Rule 3-700(c)(5) thus permits withdrawal.

         Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff will represent himself in this matter.

         All dates previously set, as reflected in this court's minute order of September 6, 2013, are confirmed.

         The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order and of the September 6, 2013 minute order to plaintiff at the address shown on his filing of October 29, 2013 (ECF 152), which address will serve as his service address unless or until the court is notified otherwise.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Wagner v. Posner

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 4, 2013
2:09-CV-03166-KJM-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2013)
Case details for

Wagner v. Posner

Case Details

Full title:CLINTON WAGNER, Plaintiff, v. MOSS POSNER, MD, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Dec 4, 2013

Citations

2:09-CV-03166-KJM-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2013)