McConnell v. United States of America
- Edward Chen
- 3:20-cv-08432
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In McConnell v. United States, Judge Chen granted counsel’s withdrawal motion and ordered McConnell to explain why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Alvin McConnell, his former attorneys at Del Rio & Caraway, P.C., and the United States, because counsel was permitted to withdraw and McConnell was required to explain why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
In McConnell v. United States of America, Del Rio & Caraway, P.C. asked to withdraw as Alvin McConnell’s lawyers because communication with him had broken down. The United States did not oppose the request.
The court found that the firm had been able to communicate with McConnell only once since representation began and that his lack of communication caused court-ordered mediation to be postponed three times. The court also noted that the problem had interfered with the United States’ efforts to litigate the case.
Judge Edward M. Chen granted the firm’s motion to withdraw, while requiring papers to continue to be served on the firm for forwarding until McConnell obtains replacement counsel. The court ordered McConnell to show cause within 30 days why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute; it did not dismiss the case in this order.
The detailed version
- McConnell v. United States of America · No. 3:20-cv-08432
- Edward Chen
- Oct. 15, 2021
Background
Del Rio & Caraway, P.C. moved to withdraw as counsel for Alvin McConnell based on a breakdown in communication. The firm stated that it had repeatedly tried to contact McConnell by phone, email, letter, and text message, with only one successful communication since it began representing him in August 2019. The firm also stated that court-ordered mediation had to be continued three times because of the communication problem.
The firm sent McConnell a letter on August 31, 2021 warning that it would have to stop representing him if he did not respond. It sent another letter on September 10, 2021 stating that it would no longer represent him. The United States did not oppose the motion to withdraw.
Legal standard and analysis
The court explained that whether to allow an attorney to withdraw is within the trial court’s discretion. It applied the California professional-conduct rule allowing withdrawal when a client’s conduct makes it unreasonably difficult for the attorney to represent the client effectively. The court also applied Civil Local Rule 11-5, which requires court approval before counsel withdraws and allows the court to require papers to continue being served on withdrawing counsel for forwarding when no replacement counsel appears.
The court found good cause for withdrawal because of the communication breakdown and the resulting inability to proceed with mediation. It also noted that McConnell’s lack of communication had interfered with the United States’ efforts to litigate the case, including attempts to schedule his deposition. The court viewed favorably the request that McConnell explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.
Ruling
The court granted Del Rio’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record. Under Civil Local Rule 11-5(b), papers must continue to be served on Del Rio for forwarding until McConnell obtains substitute counsel. The court also ordered McConnell to show cause within 30 days why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order disposed of Docket No. 26 but did not itself dismiss the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.