The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JOSEPH PEREZ, No. 2:24-cv-03402-TLN-JDP
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN,
15 Defendant.
16
17
18 This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Withdraw filed by J. Michael Brown and
19 The Law Office of J. Michael Brown, counsel for Plaintiff Joseph Perez (“Plaintiff”). (ECF No.
20 23.) Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 27.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court
21 GRANTS the motion.
22 The Local Rules of this district require an attorney who would withdraw and leave his or
23 her client without representation to obtain leave of court upon a noticed motion. E.D. Cal. L.R.
24 182(d). Local Rule 182(d) also requires an attorney to provide notice to the client and all other
25 parties who have appeared, and an affidavit stating the current or last known address of the client.
26 Id. Finally, to comply with Local Rule 182(d), the attorney must conform to the requirements of
27 the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Id.
28 The decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw is within a court’s discretion.
1 McNally v. Eye Dog Found. for the Blind, Inc., No. 09-cv-AWI-SKO-01174, 2011 WL 1087117,
2 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2011). District courts within this circuit have considered several factors
3 when evaluating a motion to withdraw, including the reason for withdrawal, prejudice to the
4 client, prejudice to the other litigants, harm to the administration of justice, and possible delay.
5 See, e.g., Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. 09-cv-01643-SBA, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2
6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010); CE Res., Inc. v. Magellan Group, LLC, No. 08-cv-02999-MCE-KJM,
7 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2009); Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 07-cv-
8 00594-WQH-NLS, 2008 WL 410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008).
9 In the instant case, Plaintiff’s counsel satisfied Local Rule 182(d) by filing a declaration
10 that it informed Plaintiff of its intent to withdraw and by providing the Court with Plaintiff’s last
11 known address. (ECF No. 23-1.) Plaintiff’s counsel also established withdrawal is proper under
12 the California Rules of Professional Conduct. More specifically, California Rule of Professional
13 Conduct 1.16(b)(4) states an attorney may withdraw from representing a client if the client
14 renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyers to carry out the representation effectively.
15 Plaintiff’s counsel represents that there are irreconcilable differences, rendering it unreasonably
16 difficult for Plaintiff’s counsel to effectively represent Plaintiff. (ECF No. 23-1 at 4.)
17 Accordingly, there is good cause to allow Plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw.
18 The Court also finds there is a low risk of prejudice to Plaintiff if this motion is granted as
19 the next scheduled hearing is not until November 6, 2025, over a month from the date of this
20 Order. Further, this case is in the early stages of litigation. Lastly, the Court cannot identify any
21 harm to the administration of justice or possible delay that would result from granting the motion
22 to withdraw.
23 While Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s counsel Motion to Withdraw on the basis that
24 Plaintiff’s email address was not provided, such is not required by the Local Rules. The Court
25 encourages Plaintiff’s counsel to provide Plaintiff’s email address to Defendant to facilitate
26 communication but will not deny the motion on that basis.
27 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Withdraw (ECF No.
28 23), leaving Plaintiff in Pro Per. This case is REFERRED to the assigned magistrate judge for all
1 | purposes, exclusive of the pretrial conference and trial. See Local Rule 302(c)(21). The Clerk of
2 | Court is directed to serve this Order on Plaintiff at 7124 Caran Avenue, Stockton, California
3 | 95207.
4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5 | DATE: September 30, 2025 7,
4 TROY L. NUNLEY
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28