1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARL ACKERMAN, No. 2:24-cv-01992-TLN-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Withdraw filed by Alex Farzan and The 19 Law Office of Alex Farzan, counsel for Plaintiff Carl Ackerman (“Plaintiff”). (ECF No. 15.) 20 Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition. 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,

, 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,

, at *2 6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010); CE Res., Inc. v. Magellan Group, LLC, No. 08-cv-02999-MCE-KJM, 7

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2009); Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 07-cv- 8 00594-WQH-NLS,

, 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. 15 at 7.) Plaintiff’s counsel also established withdrawal is proper 12 under the California Rules of Professional Conduct. More specifically, California Rule of 13 Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(4) states an attorney may withdraw from representing a client if the 14 client renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyers to carry out the representation effectively. 15 Plaintiff’s counsel represents that an irreconcilable break in the attorney-client relationship, 16 rendering it unreasonably difficult for Plaintiff’s counsel to effectively represent Plaintiff. (ECF 17 No. 15 at 5.) 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 and the other litigants if 19 this motion is granted as there are no pending hearings scheduled and this case is in the early 20 stages of litigation. Lastly, the Court cannot identify any harm to the administration of justice or 21 possible delay that would result from granting the motion to withdraw. 22 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 23 15), leaving Plaintiff in Pro Per. This case is REFERRED to the assigned magistrate judge for all 24 purposes, exclusive of the pretrial conference and trial. See Local Rule 302(c)(21). The Clerk of 25 Court is directed to serve this Order on Plaintiff at 5522 California Street, Chico, California 26 95973. 27 // 28 // 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 DATE: September 30, 2025 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