1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEOLA DAVIS, et al. No. 2:24-cv-02161-DC-SCR 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR 14 COUNTY OF SOLANO, et al., PLAINTIFFS 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 36) 16 17 This matter is before the court on the unopposed motion to withdraw as Plaintiffs’ counsel 18 of record filed by Attorneys Brandon Yee, Kenneth Chike Odiwe, and John L. Burris on May 19, 19 2025. (Doc. No. 36.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the pending motion was taken under 20 submission to be decided on the papers. (Doc. No. 39.) For the reasons explained below, the 21 court will grant the pending motion to withdraw as counsel. 22 LEGAL STANDARD 23 An attorney’s motion to withdrawal as counsel of record is governed by the Local Rules 24 of this court. Specifically, Local Rule 182 provides as follows: 25 Unless otherwise provided herein, an attorney who has appeared may not withdraw leaving the client in propria persona without leave of 26 court upon noticed motion and notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared. The attorney shall provide an affidavit 27 stating the current or last known address or addresses of the client and the efforts made to notify the client of the motion to withdraw. 28 1 L.R. 182(d). In addition, “[w]ithdrawal as attorney is governed by the Rules of Professional 2 Conduct of the State Bar of California, and the attorney shall conform to the requirements of 3 those Rules.” Id. 4 Rule 1.16(a) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct provides several grounds 5 upon which an attorney “shall withdraw from the representation of a client,” including if: 6 (1) the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the client is bringing an action, conducting a defense, asserting a position in 7 litigation, or taking an appeal, without probable cause and for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person; 8 (2) the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the 9 representation will result in violation of these rules or of the State Bar Act; 10 (3) the lawyer’s mental or physical condition renders it unreasonably 11 difficult to carry out the representation effectively; or 12 (4) the client discharges the lawyer. 13 Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(a) (emphasis added). 14 In contrast to Rule 1.16(a), a withdrawal based on the grounds listed in Rule 1.16(b) is 15 permissive, not mandatory. Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(b). Those permissive grounds include to 16 following: 17 (1) the client insists upon presenting a claim or defense in litigation, or asserting a position or making a demand in a non-litigation matter, 18 that is not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of 19 existing law; 20 (2) the client either seeks to pursue a criminal or fraudulent course of conduct or has used the lawyer’s services to advance a course of 21 conduct that the lawyer reasonably believes was a crime or fraud; 22 (3) the client insists that the lawyer pursue a course of conduct that is criminal or fraudulent; 23 (4) the client by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for 24 the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively; 25 (5) the client breaches a material term of an agreement with, or obligation, to the lawyer relating to the representation, and the lawyer 26 has given the client a reasonable warning after the breach that the lawyer will withdraw unless the client fulfills the agreement or 27 performs the obligation; 28 ///// 1 (6) the client knowingly and freely assents to termination of the representation; 2 (7) the inability to work with co-counsel indicates that the best 3 interests of the client likely will be served by withdrawal; 4 (8) the lawyer’s mental or physical condition renders it difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively; 5 (9) a continuation of the representation is likely to result in a violation 6 of these rules or the State Bar Act; or 7 (10) the lawyer believes in good faith, in a proceeding pending before a tribunal, that the tribunal will find the existence of other good cause 8 for withdrawal. 9 Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(b). 10 For permissive withdrawals, the decision to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to 11 withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial court. “In ruling on a motion to withdraw as 12 counsel, courts consider: (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal 13 may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; 14 and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Beard v. 15 Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 3:07-cv-00594-WQH-NLS,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 16 13, 2008); see also CE Res., Inc. v. Magellan Grp., LLC, No. 2:08-cv-02999-MCE-KJM, 2009

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2009) (noting that “[u]ltimately, the court’s ruling must 18 involve a balancing of the equities”). 19 For both mandatory and permissive withdrawals, representation shall not be terminated 20 until the attorney “has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the 21 rights of the client, such as giving the client sufficient notice to permit the client to retain other 22 counsel.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(d). 23 ANALYSIS 24 Here, Attorneys Yee, Odiwe, and Burris move to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs in this 25 action because “it has become unreasonably difficult for [counsel] to carry out effective 26 representation,” and “Plaintiffs and [counsel] have irreconcilable differences over the 27 management and direction of the litigation.” (Doc. No. 36 at 3.) In a declaration filed under seal, 28 Attorney Yee provides further detail as to those difficulties and irreconcilable differences. (Doc. 1 No. 41.) The pending motion thus seeks permissive withdrawal based on California Rule of 2 Professional Conduct 1.16(b). (Doc. No. 36 at 3–4.) 3 As for prejudice withdrawal may cause to other parties, the court notes that Defendants 4 did not file an opposition to the pending motion for withdrawal, nor otherwise express concerns 5 regarding prejudice or delay. 6 As for prejudice to Plaintiffs, counsel assert in the pending motion that Plaintiffs have 7 indicated they do not object to counsel’s withdrawal from representing them. (Id. at 5.) In 8 addition to giving Plaintiffs written notice of their intent to withdraw, Attorney Yee and Attorney 9 Odiwe “met with Plaintiffs personally where the possibility of not continuing to pursue this action 10 was discussed.”1 (Id. at 4.) Attorney Yee explains in the declaration he concurrently filed with the 11 pending motion that he sent Plaintiffs their case file, including the coroner’s report, on December 12 18, 2024, and they “discussed the matter in depth.” (Doc. No. 36-1 at 2.) Attorney Yee further 13 states that as a result of that discussion, Plaintiffs agreed to seek other counsel to represent them 14 in this action. (Id.) Even though Plaintiffs have had notice of their counsel’s intention to withdraw 15 for over six months, to date, Plaintiff has not filed a substitution of counsel or a notice of 16 appearance of new counsel. 17 As for delay that may be caused by permitting withdrawal, the court notes that this case 18 currently has a motion to dismiss pending and a scheduling order has not yet issued. (See Doc. 19 No. 31.) Thus, this case is still in the early stages of litigation. Granting the pending motion and 20 providing time for Plaintiffs to obtain new counsel to represent them in this case will not cause 21 significant delay in resolving this case. 22 Having considered the motion and Attorney Yee’s representations, the court finds that the 23 permissive withdrawal sought by counsel is appropriate under Rule 1.16(b). 24 Thus, the pending motion to withdrawal as counsel for Plaintiffs will be granted. Plaintiffs 25 Leola Davis, Jayden Davis, and Keymari Davis will be provided thirty (30) days to obtain new 26 counsel to represent them in this action or to inform the court of their intention to proceed pro se 27 1 Attorney Yee provided the court with Plaintiff’s last known address, as required by Local Rule 28 182. (Doc. No. 40.) 1 in this case. However, as a minor, Plaintiff O. D., through her guardian ad litem Margrette Davis, 2 may only proceed with counsel. See Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego,

, 877 (9th Cir. 3 1997) (holding that “a parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child 4 without retaining a lawyer”). Thus, Plaintiff O.D. will be provided thirty (30) days to obtain new 5 counsel to represent her in this action. 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the reasons set forth above: 8 1. The motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs (Doc. No. 36) is GRANTED; 9 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Attorneys Brandon Yee, Kenneth 10 Chike Odiwe, and John L. Burris as the counsel of record for Plaintiffs; 11 3. Attorneys Brandon Yee, Kenneth Chike Odiwe, and John L. Burris shall comply 12 with all obligations under Rule 1.16(e) of the California Rules of Professional 13 Conduct regarding release of a client’s papers and property and return of unearned 14 fees; 15 4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this order, Plaintiffs Leola Davis, 16 Jayden Davis, and Keymari Davis shall file either: (i) a notice of appearance by 17 new counsel obtained to represent them in this action, or (ii) a notice informing the 18 court that they will continue prosecuting this action pro se; 19 5. Within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this order, Plaintiff O.D., through 20 her guardian ad litem Margrette Davis, shall file a notice of appearance by new 21 counsel obtained to represent her in this action; 22 6. Plaintiffs are warned that their failure to comply with this order may result in the 23 court dismissing this action due to their failure to prosecute and failure to comply 24 with the court’s order; 25 7. Plaintiffs Leola Davis, Jayden Davis, and Keymari Davis are substituted in pro se 26 and are directed to comply with all future hearing dates and the rules of the court; 27 8. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter the following contact information as 28 Plaintiffs’ addresses of record; 1 Leola Davis 204 Ohio Street, Apt. C Vallejo, CA 94590 3 Jayden Davis 4 18 Mosswood Avenue Vallejo, CA 94591 5 6 Keymari Davis 18 Mosswood Avenue 7 Vallejo, CA 94591 8 9. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order on Plaintiffs Leola Davis, 9 Jayden Davis, and Keymari Davis by mail; and 10 10. The Clerk of the Court is also directed to serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff 11 O.D.’s guardian ad litem, Margrette Davis, by mail at the following address: 12 Margrette Davis 13 18 Mosswood Avenue Vallejo, CA 94591 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 17 | Dated: _ July 31, 2025 RVI a 18 Dena Coggins United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28