1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NHU DINH TRAN, No. 2:24-cv-03232-DAD-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD 14 CITY OF ELK GROVE, FOR PLAINTIFF NHU DINH TRAN 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 13) 16 17 18 This matter came before the court on October 21, 2025 for hearing on the motion to 19 withdraw as counsel of record for plaintiff Nhu Dinh Tran filed by attorney Kyle H. Tang on 20 September 11, 2025. (Doc. No. 13.) Attorney Kyle H. Tang appeared on behalf of plaintiff and 21 attorney William Bittner appeared on behalf of defendant. For the reasons explained below, the 22 court will grant attorney Tang’s motion. 23 BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff filed his complaint in the Sacramento County Superior Court on August 7, 2024. 25 (Doc. No. 1 at 5.) On November 20, 2024, the matter was removed to this court. (Id.) 26 On September 11, 2025, attorney Tang filed the pending motion to withdraw as plaintiff’s 27 counsel of record. (Doc. No. 13.) In his declaration submitted in support of the pending motion, 28 attorney Tang states that during a conversation with plaintiff on May 1, 2025, plaintiff indicated 1 that he wished to retain new counsel. (Id. at 3.) Attorney Tang agreed to remain as plaintiff’s 2 counsel of record at that time until plaintiff had obtained new counsel to substitute him out. (Id.) 3 In early June 2025, attorney Tang spoke with plaintiff again and was provided with a new address 4 and phone number for plaintiff while indicating that he still intended to seek new counsel but had 5 not done so. (Id.) Attorney Tang represents that since June 2025 he has not received any 6 communication from plaintiff, including after informing plaintiff that he would be filing a motion 7 to withdraw as counsel of record. (Id.) At the October 21, 2025 hearing, attorney Tang clarified 8 that he had informed plaintiff of the consequences of the court granting a motion to withdraw as 9 counsel, to which plaintiff had stated that he would acquire substitute counsel. At that hearing, 10 attorney Tang also represented that he had mailed plaintiff his motion to withdraw, the magistrate 11 judge’s order granting defendant’s motion to compel (Doc. No. 17), and had attempted to inform 12 plaintiff of his obligation to comply with the magistrate judge’s order. Attorney Tang stated in 13 his declaration and at the hearing that he has also “previously provided Plaintiff with his case 14 file[.]” (Id. at 4.) 15 LEGAL STANDARD 16 An attorney’s withdrawal is governed by Local Rule 182 and the Rules of Professional 17 Conduct of the State Bar of California (“Rules of Professional Conduct”). In this regard, Local 18 Rule 182(d) provides: 19 Unless otherwise provided herein, an attorney who has appeared may not withdraw leaving the client in propria persona without leave of 20 court upon noticed motion and notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared. The attorney shall provide an affidavit 21 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. 22 Withdrawal as attorney is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, and the attorney shall 23 conform to the requirements of those Rules. 24 L.R. 182(d). Rule 1.16(a) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct provides several 25 grounds upon which an attorney “shall withdraw from the representation of a client,” including if 26 “the client discharges the lawyer.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(a)(4) (emphasis added). 27 In contrast, withdrawal is not mandatory if it is based on the grounds listed in Rule 1.16(b) 28 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, in which case the decision to grant or deny an 1 attorney’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial court. “In ruling on a 2 motion to withdraw as counsel, courts consider: (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the 3 prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the 4 administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the 5 case.” Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 3:07-cv-00594-WQH-NLS,

, at 6 *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008); see also CE Res., Inc. v. Magellan Grp., LLC, No. 2:08-cv-02999- 7 MCE-KJM,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2009) (noting that “[u]ltimately, the 8 court’s ruling must involve a balancing of the equities”). 9 DISCUSSION 10 “An attorney may seek to withdraw representation where the client’s conduct renders it 11 unreasonably difficult for counsel to carry out the employment effectively.” Doe v. Adams, No. 12 1:21-cv-01103-NONE-SAB,

, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2022). Attorney Tang 13 represents to the court that “Plaintiff has been nonresponsive to Counsel’s efforts to communicate 14 with him” and accordingly that his continued representation of plaintiff in this action has become 15 unreasonably difficult. (Doc. No. 13 at 2.) Attorney Tang also states that his last contact with 16 plaintiff was in early June 2025 and that he has “made a few more attempts to reach him” but that 17 plaintiff has not returned his calls. (Id. at 3.) Attorney Tang also attempted text messaging 18 plaintiff on September 8, 2025, but received no response. (Id.) An inability to communicate with 19 a client provides good cause for withdrawal. See, e.g., Altes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:20-cv- 20 01663-KJN,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 25, 2021) (finding that the plaintiff’s 21 failure to communicate with counsel or oppose the pending motion to withdraw was grounds for 22 the granting of that motion); see also Perez v. Delta Packing Co. of Lodi, No. 2:19-cv-02228- 23 DAD-JDP,

, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 16, 2023) (finding that failure of the 24 plaintiffs to communicate with counsel rendered effective representation impossible). 25 Additionally, attorney Tang has attempted to mitigate any prejudice to plaintiff from his 26 withdrawal as counsel of record by notifying plaintiff of his intent to file a motion to withdraw as 27 counsel of record, mailing plaintiff that motion to withdraw along with the assigned magistrate 28 judge’s order granting defendant’s motion to compel, and mailing plaintiff his case file. (Doc. 1 No. 13 at 3–4); see also Tulare Golf Course, LLC v. Vantage Tag, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-00505-JLT- 2 SKO,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 8, 2024) (finding that the withdrawing attorney 3 took reasonable steps to avoid prejudice by serving his client with a copy of his motion to 4 withdraw and informing it of opposition and hearing deadlines). Despite having been provided 5 with notice, plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the pending motion to withdraw. 6 As for prejudice to other parties, the court observes that defendant has filed a statement of 7 non-opposition to the motion, which supports a finding that permitting withdrawal would not 8 prejudice defendant. (Doc. No. 16.) Accordingly, the court finds that attorney Tang has 9 demonstrated that his withdrawal as counsel of record for plaintiff is appropriate due to the 10 breakdown of communications between him and plaintiff, and that the other parties are unlikely 11 to be prejudiced by his withdrawal. 12 For the reasons stated at the October 21, 2025 hearing, the court will extend the deadline 13 for plaintiff to comply with the magistrate judge’s order granting defendant’s motion to compel 14 (Doc. No. 17) from November 3, 2025 to November 17, 2025. 15 For the reasons above, 16 1. The motion to withdraw as counsel of record filed by attorney Kyle H. Tang (Doc. 17 No. 13) is GRANTED; 18 2. Attorney Kyle H. Tang shall comply with all obligations under Rule 1.16(e) of the 19 California Rules of Professional Conduct regarding release of a client’s papers and 20 property and return of any unearned fees; 21 3. Plaintiff Nhu Dinh Tran may have new counsel file a substitution of attorneys and 22 appear as his counsel of record in this case but until or unless new counsel does so, 23 plaintiff is substituted in pro se in this action and is directed that as a plaintiff now 24 proceeding pro se in this action he is required to comply with the Federal Rules of 25 Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this court, and all orders of this court; 26 4. Plaintiff Nhu Dinh Tran is ORDERED to comply with the assigned magistrate 27 judge’s order granting defendant’s motion to compel (Doc. No. 17) by no later 28 than November 17, 2025; 1 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to TERMINATE attormey Kyle H. Tang as the 2 counsel of record for plaintiff Nhu Dinh Tran; 3 6. The Clerk of the Court is also directed to ENTER the following contact 4 information as the address of record for Nhu Dinh Tran who is now proceeding 5 pro se in this action: 6 Nhu Dinh Tran 2114 Senter Road, Unit 12 7 San Jose, CA 95112 8 7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to SERVE this order on plaintiff Nhu Dinh Tran 9 by mail at the address of record listed above; and 10 8. Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order may result in the 11 dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute this action and/or abide by the 12 court’s orders. 13 ITIS SO ORDERED. * | Dated: _ October 22, 2025 Dae A. 2, axel 15 DALE A. DROZD 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28