Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Thomas Pullam is the plaintiff in a federal action in the Eastern District of California against C H Rey Transport, Inc. and Reinaldo Frias. The case had reached the pretrial stage, and motions in limine were pending. The parties attended a settlement conference on October 7, 2026, and did not settle.
According to the motion and a supporting declaration from attorney Matthew J. Kracht, Pullam told Kracht in writing the next day that he was terminating the representation and directed him to take no further action without authorization. Kracht and Silva Injury Law, Inc. say they acknowledged the discharge, gave Pullam his client file and a list of upcoming dates and deadlines, and sent him a substitution of attorney form. Pullam did not respond. The order recites this account, and no one disputed it.
The declaration also gave Pullam's last known address and stated that Defendants do not oppose withdrawal. On October 13, 2026, the court ordered expedited briefing, but neither Pullam nor Defendants responded. On October 20, 2026, the court had already vacated all pretrial and trial dates.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta granted the motion, relieved Kracht and Silva Injury Law, Inc. as counsel of record, and directed the Clerk to remove them from the docket. The court treated withdrawal as a matter of discretion. Local Rule 182(d) bars an attorney from withdrawing and leaving a client in propria persona without leave of court. The court balanced the equities, including the grounds for withdrawal and its effect on other litigants and the resolution of the case.
The court found good cause. Pullam's express discharge of counsel triggered the withdrawal obligation under California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(a)(4), and a client's right to discharge his attorney is absolute. The court found that withdrawal would not unduly prejudice Defendants or unreasonably delay the case. Defendants did not oppose, Pullam did not respond, and the vacated pretrial and trial dates gave Pullam or new counsel time to address the pending motions in limine and prepare for trial.
The order is a case-management ruling, not a judgment. By November 30, 2026, Pullam must either have new counsel enter an appearance or notify the court in writing whether he intends to proceed pro se. The Clerk must update the docket with his last known mailing address and mail him a copy of the order. The order does not address the merits, the pending motions in limine or new trial dates, and it does not state what happens if Pullam misses the deadline.
Key Takeaways
- A client's written discharge of his lawyer supplies good cause for withdrawal, because California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(a)(4) requires withdrawal when the client discharges the lawyer.
- Even when the client has discharged counsel, withdrawal still requires leave of court under Local Rule 182(d), and the court weighs the equities, including the effect on other parties and on the resolution of the case.
- Vacated pretrial and trial dates, together with the defendants' non-opposition and the plaintiff's silence, weighed heavily against any finding of prejudice or delay.
- The court conditioned withdrawal on a firm deadline of November 30, 2026, for the plaintiff to retain new counsel or state in writing whether he will proceed pro se.
- The order resolves only representation. The case remains pending, and the motions in limine and the schedule are left for later.
Why It Matters
This is a routine but instructive ruling on the point where a client's absolute right to discharge counsel meets the court's interest in moving a case along. The court granted withdrawal only after considering prejudice to the opposing party and the posture of the case. It used its power to attach conditions by requiring the plaintiff to declare his intentions by a date certain.
The decision is an unpublished district-court order and has no precedential weight. It is useful mainly as an example of how Eastern District of California judges handle unopposed withdrawal motions after a discharge, and of why vacating the trial schedule first can ease the prejudice analysis. Practitioners should note what the order leaves open: the pending motions in limine, any new trial schedule, and the consequences if the plaintiff does not respond.