Maria Nino v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 MARIA NINO, No. 1:20-cv-00306-AWI-SKO Plaintiff, v. ORDER RE: PROPOSED SUBSTITUTION
OF ATTORNEY
WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., et al., (Doc. 14) Defendants.
On April 20, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a “Consent Order Granting Substitution of 17 Attorney,” (Doc. 14), which states that “Plaintiff Maria Nino, Pro Se” substitutes as counsel of 18 record for herself, in place of her attorneys Zachary D. Schorr, Esq., and Melissa Marquez, Esq. 19 (Id. at 1.) As explained below, because Plaintiff’s counsel’s withdrawal from the case would leave 20 Plaintiff in propria persona, counsel must comply with Local Rule 182(d). 21 An attorney may not withdraw as counsel of record except by leave of court, and granting leave to withdraw is discretionary. See Warkentine v. Soria, CASE NO. 1:13-cv-1550-MJS, 2014 WL 12773794, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2014) (citing United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 25 (9th Cir. 2009); Darby v. City of…