Murray v. King County Court

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE — 7 — SARA MURRAY, CASE NO. 24-cv-00239 — 8 — Plaintiff, ORDER — 9 — v. — 10 — KING COUNTY COURT, et. al., — 11 — Defendants. — 12 — — 13 — This matter comes before the Court on the Notice of Attorney Withdrawal of — 14 — Rebecca Cambreleng. Dkt. No. 20. On February 5, 2024, United States Magistrate — 15 — Judge Jeff Armistead for the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon granted — 16 — Sara Murray’s motion for appointment of counsel solely to advise Murray on — 17 — jurisdictional issues. Dkt. No. 20-2 at 2-5. Cambreleng was appointed on February — 18 — 7, 2024. Dkt. No. 20-2 at 2-6. On February 16, 2024, Judge Armistead granted — 19 — Murray’s motion to transfer her lawsuit to this district. See Dkt. Nos. 16. — 20 — Cambreleng included a letter requesting the termination of her appointment — 21 — as pro bono counsel with her Notice. Dkt. No. 20-2 at 1. She requests withdrawal of — 22 — representation because she has completed her limited representation of Murray and — 23 — 1 explains she is not licensed in Washington and does not intend to continue 2 representation of Murray. Id. at 6. Murray did not file a direct response to 3 Cambreleng’s Notice or letter, but she acknowledges in a separate filing that 4 Cambreleng is “not representing or helping [her]” and “cannot.” See Dkt. No. 25 at 5 12. 6 LCR 83 .2(b)(1) states the circumstances and conditions for attorney 7 withdrawal. It states that “[l]eave [to withdraw] shall be obtained by filing a motion 8 . . . and proposed order for withdrawal,” and “shall include a certification that the 9 motion was served on the client and opposing counsel.” LCR 83.2(b)(1). Finally, a 10 “proposed order for withdrawal must (1) be signed by all opposing counsel or pro se 11 parties, and (2) be signed by the party’s new counsel, if appropriate, or by the 12 party,” and “[i]f a withdrawal will leave a party unrepresented, the motion to 13 withdraw must include the party’s address and telephone number.” Id. 14 Here, Cambreleng’s Notice and letter do not satisfy the procedural 15 requirements of LCR 83.2(b) since her Notice and letter do not include Murray’s 16 address or evidence of her consent. See Dkt. No. 20-2. And Cambreleng’s withdrawal 17 will leave Murray unrepresented. 18 Despite these deficiencies, “[t]he trial court retains wide discretion in a civil 19 case to grant or deny a motion to withdraw.” Putz v. Golden, No. C10-0741JLR, — 20 — 2012 WL 13019202 , at *3 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 3, 2012) (citing Le Grand v. Stewart, — 21 — 133 F.3d 1253 , 1269 (9th Cir. 1998); Ohntrup v. Firearms Ctr., Inc., 802 F.2d 676 , 22 679 (3rd Cir. 1986); Bohnert v. Burke, No. CV-08-2303-PHX-LOA, 2010 WL 23 5067695, at *1-*2 (D. Ariz. Dec. 7, 2010)). The consent of a client for an attorney to 1 withdraw is not dispositive, rather the district court may consider factors including: 2 “(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause 3 to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of 4 justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” 5 Putz v. Golden, 2012 WL 13019202 , at *3. 6 Considering these factors, the Court finds it reasonable to grant 7 Cambreleng’s request. First, Cambreleng wishes to withdraw because she has 8 completed the limited purpose of her pro bono appointment—jurisdictional 9 analysis—and this lawsuit has been transferred from Oregon to this District where 10 Cambreleng is not authorized to practice law. Second, no defendants have appeared 11 in this lawsuit to be prejudiced. See Dkt. Third, Murray has applied for and been 12 granted in forma pauperis status to proceed pro se, so Cambreleng’s withdrawal will 13 not unreasonably hinder the administration of justice. Dkt. No. 26. And fourth, 14 given the limited purpose of Cambreleng’s pro bono representation, and the fact this 15 lawsuit has recently been transferred to this District, Cambreleng’s withdrawal will 16 not delay resolution of this case. 17 Accordingly, Cambreleng’s request to withdraw as counsel of record is 18 GRANTED. 19 It is so ORDERED. 20 Dated this 30th day of April, 2024. — 21 — A 22 Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge — 23 —