(PC) Baca v. Biter

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 FRANK BACA, Case No. 1:15-cv-01916-DAD-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER THAT THE PARTIES FILE A JOINT STATEMENT ON THE PENDING 14 MARTIN BITER, et al., MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS OF THIS 15 Defendants. ORDER

18 Counsel for plaintiff has filed a new motion to withdraw, ECF No. 172, but the court is concerned that the motion does not describe how the pending motions for summary judgment would be handled in counsel’s absence. The original hearing date for those summary judgment motions was delayed so that there would be an opportunity to depose defendant Akanno, but there now appears to be no plan for such a deposition. In addition, the court notes that the motions for summary judgment were filed without a notice pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). Should plaintiff soon be without counsel, which counsel’s motion contemplates, such a notice will be required.

26 Given the uncertainty over the pending motions and the deposition (and the potential for delay and unfairness), the court orders that the parties file a joint statement with a plan for briefing and deciding the motions in question within fourteen days of this order. The court will 4.6.40 EUAN VE VU APO PIR I ee AY ee | decide the motion to withdraw after receiving the joint statement. Whether to grant such a motion || is left to the court’s discretion, see LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998), | though courts in this district typically consider such factors as the reasons for withdrawal, | possible prejudice to the client, harm to the administration of justice, and possible delay, see || Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC v. X-Body Equip., Inc., No. 216CVOO148KJMEFB, 2019 WL 6 | 5063460, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2019). g IT IS SO ORDERED. ° : —N prssann — Dated: _ October 6, 2020 10 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | No. 205.