Dimitrou v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

The Law Offices of Ali Yousefi, P.C. moved to withdraw as counsel for Chloe Maria Dimitrou. The opinion states that the case involves claims for excessive use of force and unreasonable search and seizure by San Francisco Police Department officers. Dimitrou did not respond to numerous attempts by her lawyers to contact her.

At an October 21 case-management conference, Attorney Yousefi said he intended to file the withdrawal motion. The court instructed him to notify Dimitrou of the motion’s November 10 hearing date and the consequences if the motion were granted. Counsel made several attempts to contact her, and Dimitrou’s mother told counsel that she was doubtful Dimitrou would appear.

Ruling on Withdrawal

The court found that Dimitrou had made it unreasonably difficult for counsel to represent her effectively. It also found that Attorney Yousefi had made good-faith efforts to contact her and notify her that counsel sought to end the attorney-client relationship. Because Dimitrou had apparently abandoned her claim, the court found no material adverse effect from withdrawal and concluded that good cause had been shown.

The motion to withdraw was granted. Withdrawal became effective when plaintiff’s counsel filed a certification showing that the order had been served on Dimitrou.

Conditions and Further Hearing

The court ordered Dimitrou’s counsel, particularly Attorney Yousefi and Attorney Karl Siganporia, to take reasonably practicable steps to protect her interests. Counsel must continue receiving documents related to the lawsuit, preserve materials and property in their possession for two years, and surrender those materials if Dimitrou requests them. If counsel received an advance fee that was not incurred or earned, counsel must make a good-faith attempt to refund it.

Dimitrou was ordered to appear in person at the San Francisco courthouse on December 9, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Counsel was ordered to serve her with the order at her last known mailing address and make other reasonable attempts to contact her. The mailing had to include a short explanation that failure to appear could result in dismissal, while appearing would allow the hearing to address case management and scheduling.

Disposition

Judge William Alsup granted the motion to withdraw as counsel, subject to the stated conditions. The opinion did not dismiss the case or decide the merits of Dimitrou’s excessive-force or search-and-seizure claims.