Nguyen v. Mercer Island Boys Basketball Booster Club

[5] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE [7] 8 ELLE NGUYEN, et al., CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00855-RSL 9 Plaintiffs, v. [10] 11 MERCER ISLAND BOYS BASKETBALL ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AND RENOTING BOOSTER CLUB, et al., 12 DKT. # 86 AND 88 Defendants. [14] 15 This matter comes before the Court on attorney Jenny Cochrane’s amended 16 “Motion for Order Granting Leave to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff(s).” Dkt. # 92-1. [17] There has been a complete breakdown in the attorney-client relationship between plaintiff [18] Elle Nguyen and Ms. Cochrane. Ms. Nguyen fired Ms. Cochrane on or about August 12, [19] 20 2024, having become convinced that Ms. Cochrane provided ineffective assistance in this 21 case. There does not appear to be any hope of a reconciliation: Ms. Nguyen has lost trust in [22] Ms. Cochrane and insists that the relationship be terminated. Although discovery has now [23] closed, the motion to withdraw is GRANTED in these circumstances. The Court, however, [24] 25 retains jurisdiction over Ms. Cochrane with regards to the outstanding sanctions order and 26 the MIBBBC defendants’ motion for contempt. ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AND 1 Ms. Nguyen is now proceeding pro se in this litigation. Unless and until she retains [2] new counsel, she is expected to follow the local rules of this district (found at [3] https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/local-rules-and-orders) and the Federal Rules of Civil [4] 5 Procedure. Ms. Nguyen is advised that requests for relief from the Court must be in the 6 form of a motion and all declarations must be signed, dated, and made under penalty of [7] perjury. See LCR 7 and 10; 28 U.S.C. § 1746.1 [8] Plaintiffs A.A. and G.A. are minors and may neither represent themselves in federal [9] 10 litigation nor be represented by a non-lawyer parent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(1); Johns v. 11 County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 977 (9th Cir. 1997) (a parent cannot bring an action [12] on behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer). A.A. and G.A. may, however, sue [13] in their own names and capacity through a “next friend.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). Rule [14] 15 17(c)(2) “requires a court to take whatever measures it deems proper to protect an 16 incompetent person during litigation. Although the court has broad discretion and need not [17] appoint a guardian ad litem if it determines the person is or can be otherwise adequately [18] protected, it is under a legal obligation to consider whether the person is adequately [19] protected.” United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Klickitat Cnty., [20] 21 State of Wash., 795 F.2d 796, 805 (9th Cir. 1986) (footnote omitted) (citing Roberts v. [22] Ohio Casualty Insurance Co., 256 F.2d 35, 39 (5th Cir. 1958)). See also Elliott v. Versa [23] CIC, L.P., 328 F.R.D. 554 , 556 (S.D. Cal. 2018) (“As a general matter, the decision [25] 1 Motions must be accompanied by a proposed order, and Ms. Nguyen must email a Word version of the proposed 26 order to LasnikOrders@wawd.uscourts.gov. This inbox is not monitored on a regular basis and cannot be used for any other purpose, reason, or communication. ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AND 1 whether to appoint a guardian ad litem is normally left to the sound discretion of the trial [2] court.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). [3] Ms. Nguyen has not shown that she is qualified to represent A.A. and G.A. under [4] 5 Rule 17(c)(1), nor has she sought appointment as guardian ad litem under Rule 17(c)(2). 6 The Court must therefore consider whether she has standing to act as “next friend” to her [7] children. “In order to establish next friend standing, the putative next friend must show: [8] (1) that the petitioner is unable to litigate his own cause due to mental incapacity, lack of [9] 10 access to court, or other similar disability; and (2) the next friend has some significant 11 relationship with, and is truly dedicated to the best interests of, the petitioner.” Massie ex [12] rel. Kroll v. Woodford, 244 F.3d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir. 2001). There is no dispute that, as [13] minors, A.A. and G.A. are unable to litigate on their own in federal court. The first criteria [14] 15 is therefore satisfied. As their mother, Ms. Nguyen plainly has a “significant relationship” 16 with the boys. While Ms. Nguyen has not explicitly asserted her dedication to the best [17] interests of A.A. and G.A., her parental relationship and actions in the case suggest that she [18] is driven by such dedication. Accordingly, the Court finds that recognition of Ms. Nguyen [19] as a “next friend” to A.A. and G.A. for purposes of this litigation will protect the minors’ [20] 21 rights in the action while allowing them to pursue the claims that have been asserted to [22] judgment. [23] Plaintiffs request that the Court issue a new case schedule, reopening discovery and [24] the expert disclosure deadlines so that plaintiffs can correct what they see as the errors and [25] 26 omissions of their prior counsel. It is well settled, however, that a client, having chosen her ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AND 1 representative and agreed to have counsel act as their agent before the Court, is bound by [2] counsel’s representations and actions. “[T]he established principle [is] that the faults and [3] defaults of the attorney may be imputed to, and their consequences visited upon, his [4] 5 client.” In re Hill, 775 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1985). See also West Coast Theater Corp. 6 v. City of Portland, 897 F.2d 1519 , 1523 (9th Cir.1990) (same); Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v. [7] Brunswick, Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 396 (1993) (“[C]lients must be held accountable for [8] the acts and omissions of their attorneys”); Magala v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 523, 525 (7th [9] 10 Cir. 2005) ( “[I]t has long been understood that lawyer's mistakes in civil litigation are 11 imputed to their clients”). The Court has taken care to ensure that only Ms. Cochrane is [12] responsible for the Rule 11 sanctions that have been imposed in this case, but finds that [13] allowing plaintiffs to restart the litigation at this stage because their choice of counsel went [14] 15 awry would unduly prejudice defendants and interfere with the timely and efficient 16 administration of justice. In cases such as this, where the “litigants are bound by the [17] conduct of their attorneys,” the client’s remedy is a malpractice case against prior counsel, [18] not starting the litigation anew. Nealey v. Transport. Maritima Mexicana, S.A., 662 F .2d [19] 1275, 1282 n. 13 (9th Cir. 1980); see Link v. Wasbash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 , 634 n. 10 [20] 21 (1962) (“[I]f an attorney’s conduct falls substantially below what is reasonable under the [22] circumstances, the client’s remedy is against the attorney in a suit for malpractice.”); [23] Magala, 434 F.3d at 526 (“The civil remedy is damages for malpractice”). [24] That having been said, there are motions pending in this case that may ultimately [25] 26 impact the case schedule, such as plaintiff’s motion to amend and defendants’ various ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AND 1 discovery motions. Dkt. # 52, 73, 86, and 88. Two of these motions were filed at a time [2] when the relationship between plaintiffs and Ms. Cochrane was unraveling, and responses [3] were not filed. In order to give plaintiffs a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues [4] 5 that are currently before the Court and to give the Court time to resolve the outstanding 6 discovery matters before the dispositive motion deadline arrives, the Court orders as [7] follows: [8] 1. The trial date and remaining pretrial deadlines are STRICKEN, to be reset when [9] 10 the Court has resolved Dkt. # 52, 73, 86, and 88. 11 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to renote Dkt. # 86 and 88 on the Court’s calendar [12] for Friday, October 18, 2024. Plaintiffs’ responses must be received by the Court on or [13] before Monday, October 14, 2024, with defendants’ replies due on the note date. [15] 16 Dated this 26th day of September, 2024. [17] 18 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge [26] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AND