Kyle Zoellner v. Eric Losey
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:18-cv-04471
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Zoellner v. City of Arcata, Judge Corley granted Elizabeth Zareh’s motion to withdraw because her health condition required it.
The order allowed Elizabeth Zareh to stop representing Kyle Christopher Zoellner and required Zoellner to proceed on the remaining costs matter without her representation unless he obtains other counsel. It also changed the briefing schedule for the defendants’ motion to enforce execution of the bill of costs.
What happened
In Kyle Christopher Zoellner v. City of Arcata, et al., attorney Elizabeth Zareh asked to stop representing Zoellner because health problems made effective representation unreasonably difficult. The court noted that the Ninth Circuit had affirmed judgment for the defendants and that only a motion about enforcing the defendants’ bill of costs remained.
The court found that Zareh had given Zoellner late notice and that her withdrawal could cause some prejudice and had already delayed the costs matter. But Zoellner had previously represented himself in the case, and the court concluded that requiring him to proceed without a lawyer would not cause undue prejudice or unreasonable delay.
Judge Corley granted Zareh’s motion to withdraw. The court required her to serve Zoellner with the order and provide information about serving him in the case, and it extended Zoellner’s deadline to oppose the defendants’ costs motion to September 5, 2024.
The detailed version
- Kyle Zoellner v. Eric Losey · No. 3:18-cv-04471
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Aug. 16, 2024
Background
Attorney Elizabeth Zareh moved to withdraw as Kyle Christopher Zoellner’s lawyer. She stated that health conditions requiring significant care made it unreasonably difficult for her to represent Zoellner effectively. Zoellner did not oppose the motion.
The court explained that a lawyer may not withdraw until the court grants permission. Zareh had previously filed a notice purporting to substitute Zoellner for herself, but that notice was ineffective because she had not yet been relieved by court order. She later filed the motion to withdraw.
The case had reached a late stage. On June 25, 2024, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendants. The only remaining matter identified by the court was the defendants’ motion to enforce execution of their bill of costs.
Court’s analysis
The court considered Zareh’s reason for seeking withdrawal, possible prejudice to Zoellner, and whether withdrawal would delay resolution of the case. It found that Zareh had not taken reasonable steps to avoid prejudice because she notified Zoellner of her intention to withdraw on July 29, 2024, the same day she filed the motion and the day Zoellner’s response to the costs motion was due. The court also noted that the motion was initially noticed for an improper hearing date and was later moved.
The court nevertheless concluded that withdrawal would not unduly prejudice Zoellner. Zoellner had represented himself and litigated the case without a lawyer until January 2020. Because only the costs motion remained, the court found that he could proceed without counsel and that Zareh’s absence was unlikely to unreasonably delay the case.
The court further concluded that Zareh’s health condition required withdrawal under California professional-conduct rules, despite the inadequate notice and the potential prejudice.
Ruling
Judge Jacquelyn Corley granted Zareh’s motion to withdraw as Zoellner’s counsel. The court ordered Zareh to file proof that she had served Zoellner with the order and to provide information about how Zoellner should be served in the action by August 20, 2024. Zoellner’s deadline to oppose the defendants’ motion to enforce execution of the bill of costs was continued to September 5, 2024; the defendants’ reply remained due September 12, 2024. The order disposed of Docket No. 439.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.