1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBY N. THOMAS, No. 2:21-cv-01492-TLN-DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, 15 Defendant. 16

17

18 19 This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Withdraw filed by Parham Nikfarjam of 20 Javaheri & Yahoudai, APLC, attorney of record for Plaintiff. (ECF No. 28.) Defendant did not 21 file an opposition. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 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 /// 1 The decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw is within a court’s discretion. 2 McNally v. Eye Dog Found. for the Blind, Inc., No. 09-cv-AWI-SKO-01174,

, 3 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2011). District courts within this circuit have considered several factors 4 when evaluating a motion to withdraw, including the reason for withdrawal, prejudice to the 5 client, prejudice to the other litigants, harm to the administration of justice, and possible delay. 6 See, e.g., Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. 09-cv-01643-SBA,

, at *2 7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010); CE Res., Inc. v. Magellan Group, LLC, No. 08-cv-02999-MCE-KJM, 8

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2009); Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 07-cv- 9 00594-WQH-NLS,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008). 10 In the instant case, Mr. Nikfarjam satisfied Local Rule 182(d) by filing a declaration that 11 he informed Plaintiff of his intent to withdraw and by providing the Court with Plaintiff’s last 12 known address. (ECF No. 28-1.) Mr. Nikfarjam also established withdrawal is proper under the 13 California Rules of Professional Conduct. More specifically, California Rule of Professional 14 Conduct 1.16(b)(4) states an attorney may withdraw from representing a client if the client 15 “renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively.” In 16 addition, California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(5) allows an attorney to withdraw if the 17 client breaches a material term of an agreement with, or obligation, to the lawyer relating to the 18 representation. Mr. Nikfarjam represents that Plaintiff refuses to follow his advice and refuses to 19 fulfill her obligations under the retainer agreement. (Id.) Accordingly, there is good cause to 20 allow Mr. Nikfarjam to withdraw. 21 Although this matter is currently set for trial in August 2024, the Court finds there is a low 22 risk of prejudice to Plaintiff and the other litigants if this motion is granted. The Court intends to 23 reset the trial date due to the Court’s unavailability, which allows sufficient time for Plaintiff to 24 acquire new counsel to represent her at trial or alternatively prepare to represent herself at trial. 25 Lastly, the Court cannot identify any harm to the administration of justice or possible delay that 26 would result from granting the motion to withdraw. 27 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 28 28), leaving Plaintiff in Pro Per. The Court VACATES the Final Pretrial Conference set for June 1 13, 2024, as well as the trial set for August 12, 2024, due to the Court’s unavailability on those 2 | dates. Plaintiff has sixty (60) days from the entry of this Order to either: (1) inform the Court that 3 | she intends to proceed to trial without counsel, in which case the Court will reset dates for the 4 | Final Pretrial Conference and trial; or (2) acquire new representation and file a notice of 5 || appearance by new counsel. Failure to follow the Court’s orders may result in dismissal of this 6 | action. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve this Order on Plaintiff at 8169 Arroyo Vista Dr., 7 | Sacramento, California, 95823 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 | Date: April 9, 2024 10 hy /) ll “ fb 12 Troy L. Nuhlep ] 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28