Opinion
No. 2:16-cv-00746 JAM CKD
04-13-2018
A.C., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF FAIRFIELD, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
On April 11, 2018, the undersigned held a hearing on plaintiffs' counsel's motion to withdraw as attorney. (ECF No. 30.) Melissa Nold appeared telephonically for plaintiffs, and Parry Black appeared for defendants. Plaintiffs did not attend the hearing and have not opposed the motion to withdraw. At the close of the hearing, the court took the matter under submission.
I. Case Background
This civil rights action stems from a January 2015 incident in which Pablo Ceja called 911 to report that his 36-year-old brother Jose Ceja was intoxicated and possibly suicidal. Fairfield police officers arrived at the house and, at some point, Officer Hatzell fired shots into Jose's chest, killing him. (See ECF No. 14.)
The plaintiffs in this action are Jose Ceja's relatives; defendants are the City of Fairfield and individual officers. Plaintiffs seek damages for alleged constitutional violations under § 1983 and damages for wrongful death under state law. (See ECF No. 19.) After the district court partially granted defendants' motion to dismiss on October 12, 2016, the remaining defendants are Officer Hatzell and the City of Fairfield. (ECF No. 19.) Defendants have answered the operative Second Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 20 & 21.) Discovery has closed. (ECF No. 25.)
II. Motion to Withdraw
On March 1, 2018, plaintiffs' counsel filed the instant motion to withdraw. (ECF No. 30.) Counsel claim irreconcilable differences with plaintiffs, citing a sealed declaration by plaintiffs' attorney Melissa Nold. The court has reviewed Ms. Nold's sealed declaration.
Four months prior to filing their motion to withdraw, in November 2017, plaintiffs' counsel stated their intention to withdraw, and the parties stipulated to a 90-day stay to permit plaintiffs to obtain alternate counsel and/or dismiss their claims. (ECF Nos. 26 & 27.) In December 2017, plaintiffs A.C. and I.C. dismissed their claims. (ECF No. 28.) The remaining plaintiffs have not opposed the instant motion. Ms. Nold avers that, while she has been in contact with some plaintiffs since filing the motion to withdraw, others have not responded to counsel's recent attempts to contact them. (See ECF No. 30 at 4.)
Following the hearing on the motion, plaintiff Arturo Ceja-Gonzalez dismissed his claims. (ECF No. 37.) --------
Eastern District of California Civil Local Rule 182(d) authorizes an attorney to withdraw as counsel of record so long as he or she (1) provides advance written notice to the client and all other parties in the action and (2) obtains leave of court. Withdrawal as attorney is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, and the attorney shall conform to the requirements of those Rules. Id. Permission to withdraw is discretionary. See LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998).
Here, counsel provided advance notice to plaintiffs and defendants' counsel, and the request to withdraw is supported by good cause as set forth in Ms. Nold's sealed declaration. //// //// ////
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' counsel's motion to withdraw (ECF No. 30) is granted. Dated: April 13, 2018
/s/_________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 / ac v fairfield.withdraw