Dimitrou v. City and County of San Francisco
- William Alsup
- 3:20-cv-07278
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Dimitrou v. City and County of San Francisco, Judge Alsup allowed counsel to withdraw and ordered Dimitrou to appear regarding possible dismissal for delay.
Chloe Maria Dimitrou, her withdrawing lawyers, and the City and County of San Francisco and Does 1-100.
What happened
In Dimitrou v. City and County of San Francisco, the plaintiff’s lawyers asked to withdraw because they could not reach her. The case concerns claims that San Francisco police officers used excessive force and conducted an unreasonable search and seizure.
The court granted the request to withdraw. It required the lawyers to continue receiving case documents, preserve materials for two years, return them if requested, and try in good faith to refund any unearned advance fee. The court also ordered the plaintiff to appear in person on December 9, 2021, to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Judge William Alsup issued the order. The withdrawal would take effect after the lawyers filed proof that they had served the order on the plaintiff.
The detailed version
- Dimitrou v. City and County of San Francisco · No. 3:20-cv-07278
- William Alsup
- Nov. 10, 2021
Background
The Law Offices of Ali Yousefi, P.C. asked to withdraw as counsel of record for Chloe Maria Dimitrou. The opinion states that the action involves claims concerning excessive use of force and unreasonable search and seizure by San Francisco Police Department officers. Counsel reported that Dimitrou had not responded to numerous efforts to contact her.
Under the district’s local rule, a lawyer may not withdraw without a court order after providing advance written notice to the client and other parties who have appeared. The court explained that withdrawal is discretionary and may be allowed when a client makes it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to provide effective representation.
Ruling
The court found that Dimitrou had made it unreasonably difficult for counsel to represent her. It also found that Attorney Ali Yousefi had made good-faith efforts to contact her and notify her about the motion and its hearing. The court stated that Dimitrou had apparently abandoned her claim and that withdrawal would not materially harm her interests. It therefore granted the motion to withdraw.
The withdrawal was subject to conditions. Yousefi and Attorney Karl Siganporia were required, to the extent reasonably practicable, to protect Dimitrou’s interests. Counsel had to continue receiving documents related to the lawsuit, preserve materials and property in their possession for two years, surrender those materials if Dimitrou requested them, and make a good-faith attempt to refund any advance fee that had not been earned or incurred. Withdrawal would become effective when counsel filed a certification of service on Dimitrou.
Order to Appear
The court ordered Dimitrou to appear in person on December 9, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. at the San Francisco Courthouse to show cause—give a reason—why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Counsel had to promptly serve the order at her last known mailing address and make other reasonable efforts to contact her. The mailing had to explain that failing to appear could result in dismissal, while appearing would allow the hearing to address case management and scheduling.
Judge William Alsup signed the order on November 11, 2021.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.