Scott et al v. Heredia et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DESIRAEE SCOTT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ANTONIA HEREDIA, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:24-cv-01067-KES-CDB
ORDER DENYING COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO WITHDRAW
(Doc. 59)
Background
Plaintiffs Desiraee Scott, Jonathan Williams, and minors S.W. and D.W., through
guardian ad litem Desiraee Scott, initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on September
7, 2024. (Doc. 1).
On January 5, 2026, counsel for Plaintiffs Quoc T. Pham filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel, supported by a declaration. (Docs. 59, 59-1). By his supporting declaration, counsel
represents that, for the past two months, he has been unable to communicate with Plaintiffs, that
there is a new conflict of interest, that he has informed the adult Plaintiffs he must withdraw
from this action and of their options for finding another attorney but has not received any
response, and that he has the last known addresses for Plaintiffs, as well as their contact
information, for purposes of notice regarding the instant motion. (Doc. 59 at 3; Doc. 59-1 at 2).
///

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Governing Authority
The decision to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw is ultimately committed to
the discretion of the trial court. United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009). “In
ruling on a motion to withdraw as counsel, courts consider (1) the reasons why withdrawal is
sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might
cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the
resolution of the case.” Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 3:07-cv-00594-WQH-NLS, 2008
WL 410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008) (citing Nat’l Career Coll., Inc. v. Spellings, No. 07-
cv-00075-HG-LK, 2007 WL 2048776, at *2 (D. Haw. July 11, 2007)); see CE Res., Inc. v.
Magellan Grp., LLC, No. 2:08-cv-02999-MCE-KJM, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14,
2009) (noting that “[u]ltimately, the court’s ruling must involve a balancing of the equities”).
In addition to the above factors, withdrawal of counsel is governed by the Local Rules.
Local Rule 182(d) provides that if withdrawal would leave a client without counsel, an attorney
must file a formal motion and provide the client and all other parties with notice of the motion to
withdraw. Id. The attorney must also submit an affidavit providing the current or last known
address of the client and describing the efforts made to notify the client of the motion to withdraw.
Id.
Further, “[w]ithdrawal 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. The California Rules of Professional Conduct provide that if the rules of a court require
permission for an attorney to withdraw, the attorney may not withdraw from employment in a
proceeding without the permission of such court. Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(c). Also, counsel
must take reasonable steps to avoid prejudicing the rights of the client, including providing
notice, allowing time for the client to employ other counsel, and complying with applicable laws
and rules. Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.6(d). Grounds for permissive withdrawal exist when “the
client by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the
representation effectively.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.6(b)(4).
///

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Discussion
Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel provides insufficient details to permit the Court to adequately
balance the equities in deciding whether to grant the relief requested based on the grounds
asserted (a new conflict of interest and breakdown in communications). See United States v.
Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009); CE Res., Inc. v. Magellan Grp., LLC, No. 2:08-cv-
02999-MCE-KJM, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2009) (noting that “[u]ltimately,
the court’s ruling must involve a balancing of the equities”). Thus, for instance, although
counsel’s motion appears to implicate Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(b)(4), his declaration does not
demonstrate that the recent breakdown in communications he attests to experiencing with his
clients “renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation
effectively.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(b)(4).1
The sparse information provided in counsel’s motion and declaration fails to explain with
any particularity the nature of the newly discovered conflict of interest, nor the circumstances
that resulted in the breakdown. As counsel provides only general and conclusory assertions
regarding any conflict of interest or breakdown in communication, the Court is unable to
sufficiently balance the equities in deciding upon the requested relief. Further, the Court notes
that there is a pending motion to dismiss (Doc. 47) and, as a result, the case has not been
scheduled and discovery has not commenced. As such, absent further information or explanation
by counsel, it is unclear to the Court how the circumstances counsel refers to in moving to
withdraw materially affects the litigation at this stage of the proceedings.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw will be denied without prejudice. Counsel
may file a renewed motion to withdraw supported by an accompanying affidavit setting forth
with sufficient particularity the circumstances counsel asserts support withdrawal. Counsel may
include an accompanying application to seal, as appropriate, should he deem the information to
be disclosed protectible under Local Rule 141 as privileged or otherwise. In short, the Court
1 In his motion, counsel cites to California Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7 and 1.16(b)(4),
which are current, but also cites to Rule 3-700(b) of the 1992 Rules of Professional Conduct, which
was superseded on November 1, 2018. See (Doc. 59 at 3).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
requires details about the newly discovered conflict of interest and the circumstances prompting
counsel to assert that communications have broken down, including among other details, the
nature and format/form (i.e., mail, email, telephone, text) of counsel’s communications or
attempted communications with the clients, the dates on which counsel did or attempted to
communicate with the clients, the dates of any responses by the clients, a description of what
prompted the breakdown of communications, and a description of the asserted conflict of
interest.
Conclusion and Order
For the reasons stated above, counsel for Plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw (Doc. 59) is
HEREBY DENIED without prejudice. Any renewed motion shall be supplemented with a
supporting declaration of counsel and accompanying application to seal consistent with Local
Rule 141, if appropriate, in which counsel provides additional details regarding the bases for
withdrawal, as described above.
Any renewed motion to withdraw by counsel for Plaintiff shall be noticed for hearing
and served upon Plaintiffs in accordance with Local Rule 182.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 6, 2026 ___________________ _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE