From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Fresno Division
Jan 30, 2007
1:05-CV-01444 OWW DLB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2007)

Opinion

          Stanley K. Jacobs, Esq., SBN 30363 Thomas F. Borcher, Esq., SBN 110255 JACOBS, JACOBS & EISFELDER, LLP Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff.


          ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S. COUNSEL'S MOTION TO BE. RELIEVED OF COUNSEL;. FINDINGS OF FACT;. and, NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

          OLIVER W. WANGER, District Judge.

         Plaintiff's Counsel's Motion to Be Relieved of Counsel for Plaintiff came on for a hearing on January 22, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, Judge Presiding. Plaintiff's counsel, Thomas F. Borcher, was present as was counsel for the City of Fresno, State Center Community College District, BNSF and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation and BNSF Railway Company. There was no appearance by Plaintiff GEORGINA SHANTELL THOMAS.

         Plaintiff's counsel advised the Court at the time of the hearing that counsel had received the signed certified mail receipt that was attached to the motion that was sent to the Plaintiff indicating that the Plaintiff had received the motion.

         Plaintiff's counsel also advised the Court at the time of the hearing that counsel had not had any communication with the Plaintiff since writing to her prior to the filing of the Motion to Be Relieved and, therefore, counsel did not know whether or not MS. THOMAS had attempted to contact new counsel.

         FINDINGS OF FACT

         Based upon the record before it, the Court makes the following Findings of Fact:

         (1) Plaintiff GEORGINA SHANTELL THOMAS has not opposed or in any way responded to her attorney's Motion to Be Relieved of Counsel.

         (2) Plaintiff's counsel has made certain recommendations to Ms. THOMAS as to how this matter ought to proceed, however, Ms. THOMAS disagrees with those recommendations and has not authorized her attorney to proceed in the manner that the attorneys feel is most appropriate under the circumstances.

         (3) Due to the counsel's obligations of confidentiality, the exact nature of the disagreement between Plaintiff's counsel and the client have not been set forth in detail. However, based on counsel's Declaration and the fact that Ms. THOMAS has not challenged counsel's representations, the Court accepts the representations of counsel as to the presence of an irreparable dispute between client and counsel.

         (4) The circumstances as set forth in the moving papers provides a basis for granting counsel's motion pursuant to Rule 3-700(C)(1) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.

         (5) Plaintiff's counsel has complied with Local Rule 83-182(d) of Local Rules for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California which addresses the withdrawal of counsel in a pending matter.

         (6) Plaintiff's counsel has stated that his firm is willing to waive any attorney fees as an accommodation to the client as it may assist her in more easily retaining new counsel.

         ORDER

         Good cause having been shown for granting Plaintiff's counsel's Motion to Be Relieved of Counsel,

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

         (1) The law firm of Jacobs, Jacobs & Eisfelder is hereby relieved of further obligation for representing Plaintiff GEORGINA SHANTELL THOMAS in the action after giving notice to all parties and to Plaintiff GEORGINA SHANTELL THOMAS of this Court's ruling;

         (2) Plaintiff's counsel's request to continue the trial date and all trial related dates is denied at this time;

         (3) All parties are ordered to appear for a Status Conference and an Order to Show Cause Hearing in Re: Continuing the Trial Date and Trial Related on February 14, 2007, at 8:45 a.m. in Courtroom 3 of the United States District Court, Eastern District located at 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California;

         (4) Plaintiff GEORGINA SHANTELL THOMAS is ordered to keep all counsel advised of her residence address and telephone number so as to permit counsel to effectively communicate with her about this action;

         (5) Moving party is ordered to notify all counsel by mail concurrently with the lodging of this Order of GEORGINA SHANTELL THOMAS' residence address and telephone number.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Thomas v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Fresno Division
Jan 30, 2007
1:05-CV-01444 OWW DLB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2007)
Case details for

Thomas v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation

Case Details

Full title:GEORGINA SHANTELL THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Fresno Division

Date published: Jan 30, 2007

Citations

1:05-CV-01444 OWW DLB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2007)

Citing Cases

Hidalgo v. S. Cal. Rail Auth.

These cases—in which obvious, apparent hazards precluded a finding of foreseeable use of property with due…