Street v. Kijakazi
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-05697
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Street v. Kijakazi: Judge Davila granted counsel’s withdrawal motion after communication broke down, giving Street 60 days to retain new counsel.
Charlene J. Street, her withdrawing attorney Harvey P. Sackett, and the case schedule.
What happened
In Street v. Kijakazi, attorney Harvey P. Sackett asked to stop representing Charlene J. Street because their communication had broken down. Sackett said he could no longer represent Street effectively.
The court gave Street an opportunity to respond, but she did not do so. The court found that allowing the withdrawal would cause minimal prejudice and paused the scheduling order for 60 days while Street sought new counsel.
Judge Edward J. Davila granted Sackett’s motion to withdraw. Until new counsel appears, Sackett must accept court papers for forwarding to Street.
The detailed version
- Street v. Kijakazi · No. 5:21-cv-05697
- Edward Davila
- Feb. 28, 2022
Background
Harvey P. Sackett, counsel of record for Charlene J. Street, moved to withdraw from representing her. Sackett stated that he and Street had experienced a breakdown in communication and that he could no longer continue representing her effectively.
Court’s analysis
The court considered the reasons for withdrawal, possible prejudice to the other litigants, harm to the administration of justice, and delay in resolving the case. It applied the rules governing attorney withdrawal, including the rule allowing withdrawal when a client’s conduct makes it unreasonably difficult for the attorney to carry out the representation effectively.
The court gave Street an opportunity to respond to the motion. She did not submit a response, and opposing counsel also did not respond. The court determined that any prejudice would be minimal and that the reason for withdrawal was permissible.
Ruling and effect
The court granted Sackett’s motion to withdraw. It gave Street 60 days to retain new counsel and held the scheduling order in abeyance during that period. Any new counsel must promptly file a notice of appearance. Until Street obtains new counsel, Sackett must accept papers for forwarding to her. The order addressed counsel’s withdrawal and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.