Special appearance in propria persona to oppose counsel's motion to withdraw UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Transcription

1 Gene Forte Sierra Creek Ct Patterson, California, Telephone: (0) Special appearance in propria persona to oppose counsel's motion to withdraw UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION EUGENE E. FORTE; EILEEN FORTE; GABRIELLE FORTE; JORDAN FORTE; NOEL FORTE; JUSTON FORTE, vs. Plaintiffs, HYATT SUMMERFIELD SUITES, PLEASANTON; ANA VILLA, individually and as employee of HYATT SUMMERFIELD SUITES PLEASANTON; PLEASANTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER JERRY NICELEY, individually and in his official capacity; OFFICER MARDENE LASHLEY, individually and inher official capacity; OFFICER MARTENS, individually and in his official capacity; and DOES 1 through, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. CII-0 DMR OPPOSITION TO COUNSEL LAPCEVIC'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF Date: August,0 Time: :00 a.m. Judge: Han. Donna M. Ryu Opposition to Counsel Lapcevic's Motion to Withdraw - CII-0 DMR 1

2 Gene Forte Sierra Creek Ct Patterson, California, Telephone: (0) JUL 0 Special appearance in propria persona to oppose counsel's motion to withdraw UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION EUGENE E. FORTE; EILEEN FORTE; GABRIELLE FORTE; JORDAN FORTE; NOEL FORTE; JUSTON FORTE, vs. Plaintiffs, HYATT SUMMERFIELD SUITES, PLEASANTON; ANA VILLA, individually and as employee of HYATT SUMMERFIELD SUITES PLEASANTON; PLEASANTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER JERRY NICELEY, individually and in his official capacity; OFFICER MARDENE LASHLEY, individually and inher official capacity; OFFICER MARTENS, individually and in his official capacity; and DOES 1 through, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. C-0 DMR DECLARATION OF EUGENE FORTE IN OPPOSITION TO COUNSEL LAPCEVIC'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW Date: August,0 Time: :00 a.m. Judge: Hon. Donna M. Ryu I, Eugene Forte, declare the following: DECLARATION OF EUGENE FORTE Declaration of Eugene Forte in Opposition to Counsel Lapcevic's Motion to Withdraw - CII-0 DMR 1

3 - Gene Forte Sierra Creek Ct r- I L.. i Patterson, California, Telephone: (0) geneforte@badgerflats.com Special appearance in propria persona to oppose counsel's motion to withdraw UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLA D DIVISION Jl' l.. ZO" EUGENE E. FORTE; EILEEN FORTE; GABRIELLE FORTE; JORDAN FORTE; NOEL FORTE; JUSTON FORTE, vs. Plaintiffs, HYATT SUMMERFIELD SUITES, PLEASANTON; ANA VILLA, individually and as employee of HYATT SUMMERFIELD SUITES PLEASANTON; PLEASANTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER JERRY NICELEY, individually and in his official capacity; OFFICER MARDENE LASHLEY, individually and inher official capacity; OFFICER MARTENS, individually and in his official capacity; and DOES 1 through, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. CII-0 DMR PROOF OF SERVICE Date: August, 0 Time: :00 a.m. Judge: Hon. Donna M. Ryu Proof of Service of Opposition to Counsel Lapcevic's Motion to Withdraw - CII-0 DMR. 1

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. STATEMENT OF ISSUES II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS III. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES... A. ARGUMENT B. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES a. This is not a mandatory withdrawal.... b. There is no good cause for permissive withdrawal c. Rules governing conflicts or adverse interests.. IV. SUMMARY V. CONCLUSION: THE REAL FLY IN THE OINTMENT Opposition to Counsel Lapcevic s Motion to Withdraw C-0 DMR i

5 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule - California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule -00(B) California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule -00(C) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule (m) Northern District Court of California, Local Rule -(a) Northern District s Civil Rules -, on Discipline Opposition to Counsel Lapcevic s Motion to Withdraw C-0 DMR ii

6 Gene Forte Sierra Creek Ct Patterson, California, Telephone: (0) Special appearance in propria persona to oppose counsel s motion to withdraw UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION EUGENE E. FORTE; EILEEN FORTE; GABRIELLE FORTE; JORDAN FORTE; NOEL FORTE; JUSTON FORTE, vs. Plaintiffs, HYATT SUMMERFIELD SUITES, PLEASANTON; ANA VILLA, individually and as employee of HYATT SUMMERFIELD SUITES PLEASANTON; PLEASANTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER JERRY NICELEY, individually and in his official capacity; OFFICER MARDENE LASHLEY, individually and inher official capacity; OFFICER MARTENS, individually and in his official capacity; and DOES 1 through, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. C-0 DMR OPPOSITION TO COUNSEL LAPCEVIC S MOTION TO WITHDRAW; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF Date: August, 0 Time: :00 a.m. Judge: Hon. Donna M. Ryu Opposition to Counsel Lapcevic s Motion to Withdraw C-0 DMR 1

7 This opposition and objection to Plaintiff s counsel, Mr. Lapcevic s, Motion to Withdraw as Counsel is being provided by a special appearance in pro persona by Plaintiff Eugene Forte. I. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES Mr. Lapcevic moves for withdrawal based on the following grounds and allegations: 1. Plaintiff Eugene Forte (hereinafter Forte ) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District, naming the same defendants alleging causes of actions which arose out of the same occurrence as this subject complaint. Lapcevich says that he gained such information from opposing counsel Louis Leone on May th, 0.. Forte went against Mr. Lapcevic s advice in filing such Eastern District complaint.. Mr. Lapcevic discovered the filing of Forte s Eastern District complaint on May th, 0 during a conversation with opposing counsel Louis Leone, after Lapcevic s filing of the subject complaint on March th, 0, and the service of the subject complaint on April th, that the Pleasanton defendants are part of an excess pooling authority which retains his law firm on various cases for other municipalities.. Mr. Lapcevic claims that Forte s filing of his Eastern District complaint caused a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship beyond repair. Forte submits that a gross misunderstanding has occurred on the part of Mr. Lapcevic, either through his communications with defendants counsel or Forte, and the facts as Mr. Lapcevic has described are inaccurate and/or incomplete. In response to Mr. Lapcevic s grounds for withdrawal, Forte submits the following: 1. On February th, 0, prior to this subject complaint being filed and served, Forte filed his Eastern District complaint naming the Hyatt and Pleasanton Police Department defendants for causes of actions arising from the same occurrence due to Mr. Lapcevic not committing that he was going to file such action against such defendants as part of a cause of action. Forte filed such complaint so as not to blow the statute of limitation for filing such Opposition to Counsel Lapcevic s Motion to Withdraw C-0 DMR

8 action against such defendants and the Merced County agencies that Mr. Lapcevic somehow represents at times via an insurance pool.. Mr. Lapcevic, after filing the subject complaint on March th, 0, told Forte that he was going to be amending the subject complaint to better plead the cause of action prior to it being served to make it more difficult to be demurred to. Mr. Lapcevic informed Forte that he was taking a seminar to understand how to do such in late March 0 which would enable him to do so prior to serving the complaint on the defendants within the time limitation for service. (See Decl. of Forte, ).. On May th, 0 after Forte received confirmation that Mr. Lapcevic served the subject un-amended complaint on the Hyatt and Pleasanton Police Department on April th, 0, even though it had not been amended as Mr. Lapcevic planned on doing, Forte filed his First Amended Complaint in the Eastern District removing the Hyatt and Pleasanton Police Department seven days prior to Mr. Lapcevic s being provided inaccurate information on May th, 0 by opposing counsel Louis Leone that they were defendants in the Eastern District complaint of Forte. (See Decl. of Forte, Ex. 1,, ). They were in fact not defendants at such time of the conversation between Mr. Lapcevic and Mr. Leone. Such fact could be easily discerned by checking the status of the case on Pacer. Mr. Lapcevic had informed Forte that it was opposing counsel Leone who had gained such initial information that they were defendants from Pacer. Ergo, Mr. Leone was being disingenuous with Mr. Lapcevic regarding the true status of the complaint in the Eastern District.. During June-July 0, prior to entering into the legal representation agreement with Mr. Lapcevic, Forte had discussed with Mr. Lapcevic in great detail his intended filing of the Eastern District complaint and how the Hyatt and Pleasanton PD were conspirators with several Merced County agencies and the City of Los Banos which would be named defendants. Mr. Lapcevic at such time informed Forte that it was the decision of his superiors at the law firm that they could not represent Forte in such potential case because the City of Los Banos, one of the potential defendants, belonged to an insurance pool of Opposition to Counsel Lapcevic s Motion to Withdraw C-0 DMR

9 municipalities that his firm provides coverage for, and derives over sixty percent of their revenues from. (See Decl. of Forte, ).. Mr. Lapcevic never told Forte that Forte could not file a lawsuit against the City of Los Banos, or ever advised against the filing of such lawsuit in Eastern District Court by Forte. Mr. Lapcevic in fact referred Forte to attorney Mr. Graham Lopez (#0) in furtherance of Forte pursuit of filing such action. Due to Mr. Lapcevic s disclosure of his conflict, Forte did not discuss the case with Mr. Lapcevic, and Mr. Lapcevic did not provide any advice regarding such case to Forte.. Mr. Lapcevic said that he would have no problem or conflict in representing Forte against the Pleasanton PD, or Hyatt, only that he could not file a case against the Los Banos Police Department. Based upon such understanding Forte and Lapcevic entered into the contingency fee legal representation agreement.. After Mr. Lapcevic provided a written disclosure of his potential conflict regarding the Pleasanton defendants on or about May 1, 0, and Forte has since provided an informed written consent acknowledging Mr. Lapcevic s disclosure and conflict. (See Decl. of Forte, Exhibit ). There has been no breakdown of the attorney-client relationship other than Mr. Lapcevic having possibly experience an unintentional embarrassment caused by his lack of knowledge of the Eastern District complaint, which Forte submits, he shouldn t feel embarrassed for because he was not involved with it in any way, nor was he informed of Forte s actions in it. II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS On July 0, 0, Forte signed a contingency retainer agreement with Mr. Lapcevic for Mr. Lapcevic to represent him in a lawsuit concerning an incident that occurred on March, 0 at the Hyatt Summerfield Suites Pleasanton (hereinafter Hyatt ). Upon initial discussion of the issues in June - July of 0 involving Merced County entities in other incidents, Mr. Lapcevic specifically Opposition to Counsel Lapcevic s Motion to Withdraw C-0 DMR

10 told Forte that his law firm represented a pool of municipalities and would not be able to be involved in representing Forte in a complaint against the City of Los Banos. However, he would be able to represent the subject Hyatt/Pleasanton complaint because Pleasanton and their police department were not a part of that pool in the event that they were named as defendants. (See Decl. of Forte,, ). The statute of limitations for Forte s claim against the City of Los Banos and other Merced County officials was February, 0, and the statute of limitations against the Hyatt and Pleasanton defendants was March, 0. Forte searched for an attorney to represent him against the City of Los Banos and other Merced County officials but was unable to find one despite meeting with an attorney for several hours that Mr. Lapcevic himself had referred to Forte specifically for such complaint. In his search for counsel for such complaint, Forte contacted and spoke to other attorneys who also declined to represent Forte for various reasons. (See Decl. of Forte,,, ). At all times, Mr. Lapcevic was unsure whether to file against the Pleasanton defendants for violation of civil rights and include such cause of action in the complaint against the Hyatt. Forte informed him that he believed that the Civil Rights violations cause of action should be included, but that the final decision was Mr Lapcevic s because he was the attorney, and he knew best. At no time, did Mr. Lapcevic advise Forte not to file his lawsuit against the City of Los Banos and Merced County. (See Decl. of Forte,, ). By the time Forte was required to write and file the complaint in the Eastern District court against the City of Los Banos and Merced County on February, 0, this subject complaint had still not been filed. Because Forte never directed or insisted that Mr. Lapcevic file or not file against any defendants for any cause of action, Forte had no surety that the Pleasanton defendants would be named for a violation his civil rights. Mr. Lapcevic had been focused on the Hyatt defendants. (See Decl. of Forte,,, ). In order to be prudent and preserve his right to sue the Pleasanton defendants for civil rights violation even though it would be burdensome to do so, Forte included them into his Eastern Opposition to Counsel Lapcevic s Motion to Withdraw C-0 DMR

11 District complaint, but did not serve any defendants until he knew that the subject complaint included the Pleasanton defendants. After he realized that such had been done, Forte immediately filed an amended complaint on May, 0 removing the Hyatt and Pleasanton defendants from the Eastern District complaint as named defendants. (See Decl. of Forte,, ). It was not until May 1, 0 or thereabouts that Mr. Lapcevic discovered and notified Forte of a potential conflict regarding the Pleasanton defendants. (See Decl. of Forte, 0). A. ARGUMENT III. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Forte clarifies his position in opposition to this motion to withdraw as follows: 1. Although Forte filed the original complaint on February, 0 in the Eastern District naming the Pleasanton defendants prior to this subject complaint being filed, he did it only as a precaution (and only as it regards himself, not other plaintiffs in this action) should Mr. Lapcevic, for any reason, decide not to include them as defendants. (See Decl. of Forte, 1, 1).. At no time did Mr. Lapcevic advise Forte not to file this federal court action. In fact, Mr. Lapcevic gave Forte the name of Graham Lopez, an attorney that Mr. Lapcevic thought may be interested in taking the case. Forte did not seek advice on whether to include Pleasanton defendants in his Eastern District complaint, therefore, Lapcevic had no knowledge of such and could not have given advice to Forte regarding such. (See Decl. of Forte,,, 1).. As soon as this subject complaint was filed and served, Forte amended the Eastern District complaint and removed the Pleasanton and Hyatt defendants as named defendants. (See Decl. of Forte,, 1,, attached Exhibit of the First Amended Complaint filed on May, 0).. It is certainly not Forte s responsibility nor should he have to suffer prejudice to his case due to an oversight on Mr. Lapcevic s part regarding a potential conflict. Forte and the other plaintiffs, which include his wife, his two college students, and his two minor children, Opposition to Counsel Lapcevic s Motion to Withdraw C-0 DMR

12 Eileen, Gabrielle, Jordan, Noel, and Juston, respectively, cannot find another attorney to step into this case. In addition, even though Forte has had some experience as a pro se litigant, he does not have the resources to represent himself in this case as the other case is already consuming his (and his wife s time in helping him) as a pro se litigant. His college children, even though they are 1 years old and older, cannot represent themselves due to the requirements of their studies. His minor children, 1 and years old, must be represented by counsel by law. Therefore, Forte and other plaintiffs do not agree to represent themselves in propria persona (See Decl. of Forte, 1, 1, -).. Even though Forte was attempting to protect his own rights by naming defendants in the Eastern District original complaint, he cannot protect his family members rights due to their inability to represent themselves. (See Decl. of Forte, ).. Forte understands that mistakes occur, that the potential conflict was not identified by Mr. Lapcevic when it should have been, however, Forte has now been informed in writing, (see Decl. of Forte, 1, 1, ), that although Mr. Lapcevic is not handling another case directly in conflict for the Pleasanton defendants, Pleasanton does belong to a pool of municipalities covered by the insurance firm which hires Mr. Lapcevic s firm s, Arata, Swingle, Sodhi & Van Egmond on various cases for other municipalities.. Forte believes in Mr. Lapcevic and that he will do his best for Forte according to the Rules of Professional Conduct and the State Bar expectations of ethical conduct, and thereby submitted an informed written consent of all plaintiff clients of Mr. Lapcevic to continue representation. (See Decl. of Forte, 0, 1, ).. Forte submits that the attorney-client relationship has not broken down, that he currently has no ill will towards Mr. Lapcevic for overlooking a potential conflict (which actually is not a direct conflict as defined by the California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule -, Avoiding the Representation of Adverse Interests), and that he has tried to explain that his filing of the original Eastern District complaint, which was never served, was a safeguard to be used if needed only after Mr. Lapcevic determined what his course of action was going to Opposition to Counsel Lapcevic s Motion to Withdraw C-0 DMR

13 be regarding defendants and causes of action in this subject case. Forte never meant to upset Mr. Lapcevic, and in fact, thought that once this subject complaint was filed and served, and he amended his Eastern District complaint, that it would make no difference. Forte has always respected Mr. Lapcevic in his role as Forte s counsel, and did not want to make any demands on what Mr. Lapcevic should include in the complaint. Forte gave Mr. Lapcevic his opinion, but always was careful to clarify that Mr. Lapcevic was the attorney and he was to do what he thought was best. (See Decl. of Forte, - ).. When Forte was informed of the discovery of the potential conflict, Forte asked Mr. Lapcevic and told him to dismiss the Pleasanton defendants from this subject complaint unless Mr. Lapcevic was aware of some gross prejudice to Forte. Mr. Lapcevic said he could not dismiss them because it would prejudice the case. (See Decl. of Forte, ).. Forte made attempts to communicate with Mr. Lapcevic and work out a resolution, there was no arguing, anger, or breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. (See Decl. of Forte, 0, and attached communications).. Forte is loathe to believe if Mr. Lapcevic continues to insist that he can no longer represent plaintiffs in this matter, despite Forte s written waiver of the potential conflict and amendment of the Eastern District complaint removing all Hyatt and Pleasanton defendants, that Mr. Lapcevic has intentionally created a breakdown of the supposed attorney-client relationship. Forte does not want to believe that Mr. Lapecevic is withdrawing as a tactic on behalf of the insurance company that represents a pool of municipalities his law firm may be contracted to represent, which includes the City of Los Banos, in order to disrupt both Forte s cases (to help Mr. Lapcevic s firm s clients). Forte hopes this is not true, but requests the court to adhere to the Civil Local Rules of -, Discipline if this court finds it must relieve Mr. Lapcevic based on an alleged breakdown of attorney-client relationship, which Forte submits is manufactured on the part of Mr. Lapcevic, and constitutes unethical conduct for an attorney. Opposition to Counsel Lapcevic s Motion to Withdraw C-0 DMR

14 Forte objects to this motion to withdraw and submits that there is no valid legal reason for Mr. Lapcevic to withdraw pursuant to California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule B. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Northern District Court of California, Local Rule - states: -. Withdrawal from Case. (a) Order Permitting Withdrawal. Counsel may not withdraw from an action until relieved by order of Court after written notice has been given reasonably in advance to the client and to all other parties who have appeared in the case. a. This is not a mandatory withdrawal. Mandatory withdrawal is spelled out in the California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule - 00(B): (B) Mandatory Withdrawal. A member representing a client before a tribunal shall withdraw from employment with the permission of the tribunal, if required by its rules, and a member representing a client in other matters shall withdraw from employment, if: (1) The member knows or should know that the client is bringing an action, conducting a defense, asserting a position in litigation, or taking an appeal, without probable cause and for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person; or () The member knows or should know that continued employment will result in violation of these rules or of the State Bar Act; or () The member's mental or physical condition renders it unreasonably difficult to carry out the employment effectively. None of these reasons apply. There is certainly probable cause for bringing the Eastern Division complaint, and Mr. Lapcevic never said there was not. b. There is no good cause for permissive withdrawal. The California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule -00(C): Opposition to Counsel Lapcevic s Motion to Withdraw C-0 DMR

15 (C) Permissive Withdrawal. If rule -00(B) is not applicable, a member may not request permission to withdraw in matters pending before a tribunal, and may not withdraw in other matters, unless such request or such withdrawal is because: (1) The client (a) insists upon presenting a claim or defense that is not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or (b) seeks to pursue an illegal course of conduct, or (c) insists that the member pursue a course of conduct that is illegal or that is prohibited under these rules or the State Bar Act, or (d) by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively, or (e) insists, in a matter not pending before a tribunal, that the member engage in conduct that is contrary to the judgment and advice of the member but not prohibited under these rules or the State Bar Act, or (f) breaches an agreement or obligation to the member as to expenses or fees. () The continued employment is likely to result in a violation of these rules or of the State Bar Act; or () The inability to work with co-counsel indicates that the best interests of the client likely will be served by withdrawal; or () The member's mental or physical condition renders it difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively; or () The client knowingly and freely assents to termination of the employment; or () The member believes in good faith, in a proceeding pending before a tribunal, that the tribunal will find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal. [Emphasis added] None of the above apply. Forte acknowledges that it is possible that Mr. Lapcevic may believe in good faith that this court will find that his discovery of a potential conflict is good cause for withdrawal, however, he is incorrect that it is good cause for withdrawal if Forte and the other plaintiffs provides an informed written consent to his representation after being provided with a written disclosure by Mr. Lapcevic. Forte believes that even if other members of his law firm may be handling or have handled cases for other municipalities in the same pool, Mr. Lapcevic is not involved directly with those other cases, (which Mr. Lapcevic has not specified what they are) and Opposition to Counsel Lapcevic s Motion to Withdraw C-0 DMR

16 Mr. Lapcevic will follow his ethical duties to provide his best services to Forte according to the Rules of Professional Conduct and State Bar rules. c. Rules governing conflicts or adverse interests. The California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule - states: Rule - Avoiding the Representation of Adverse Interests (A) For purposes of this rule: (1) "Disclosure" means informing the client or former client of the relevant circumstances and of the actual and reasonably foreseeable adverse consequences to the client or former client; () "Informed written consent" means the client's or former client's written agreement to the representation following written disclosure; () "Written" means any writing as defined in Evidence Code section 0. (B) A member shall not accept or continue representation of a client without providing written disclosure to the client. (C) A member shall not, without the informed written consent of each client..: () Represent a client in a matter and at the same time in a separate matter accept as a client a person or entity whose interest in the first matter is adverse to the client in the first matter. Mr. Lapcevic informed Forte in writing of the discovery of the potential conflict he has in suing the Pleasanton defendants although he did not specify the actual and reasonably foreseeable adverse consequences as mentioned in the rule -(a)(1). Forte and other plaintiffs have provided an informed written consent via with the original letter to follow by mail. Therefore, no violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or of the State Bar Act will occur by Mr. Lapcevic s continued representation of plaintiffs in this lawsuit. As to the City of Los Banos, a member of the same risk pool, being a defendant in Forte s Eastern District complaint, they are represented by James D. Emerson of the Emerson, Corey, Sorensen, Church & Libke law firm in Fresno, California. (See Decl. of Forte, 0). Opposition to Counsel Lapcevic s Motion to Withdraw C-0 DMR

17 IV. SUMMARY The original Eastern District complaint was never served upon the Pleasanton and Hyatt defendants. The amended complaint removed the Pleasanton and Hyatt defendants, and all defendants have been served by June, 0, the deadline to serve the defendants pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule (m). Mr. Lapcevic never provided any advice regarding the lawsuit filed by Forte in the Eastern District Court which was filed solely by Eugene Forte, not the other plaintiffs herein. Mr. Lapcevic was aware that Forte intended to file a complaint against the City of Los Banos, but informed Forte he could not handle that case. Mr. Lapcevic in fact, recommended Mr. Graham Lopez for potential legal counsel on the case against the City of Los Banos. Forte has not been informed of any cases in which Mr. Lapcevic s firm represents the Pleasanton defendants in ongoing litigation. Mr. Lapcevic admits that even if Forte had not named Pleasanton defendants in his Eastern District complaint, he still could not or would not represent Forte in this complaint because of the potential conflict created by the recently discovered fact that the Pleasanton defendants belong to a pool of municipalities that Mr. Lapcevic s firm would possibly represent in the event of actual litigation. (See Decl. of Forte,, ). Forte and the other plaintiffs have provided an informed written consent to Mr. Lapcevic so that he may continue representing them in this subject litigation. Due to Forte s conscious effort to always respect Mr. Lapcevic s decisions as his legal counsel and be cooperative, Forte did not demand any action or non-action by Mr. Lapcevic. Forte allowed Mr. Lapcevic all decision making power concerning this subject litigation. However, Mr. Lapcevic was not firm nor committal regarding who was going to be named in the subject complaint, therefore Forte was not sure if the Pleasanton defendants would be named. If Mr. Lapcevic had decided that not suing the Pleasanton defendants was best, then Forte determined that he wanted to preserve that right as an option as well as he could and include them in his other complaint, which is why he included them in the original Eastern District complaint. Opposition to Counsel Lapcevic s Motion to Withdraw C-0 DMR

18 Forte apologizes to Mr. Lapcevic for any unintentional embarrassment caused to Mr. Lapcevic in front of opposing counsel due to the fact that Forte had not discuss the filing of the Eastern District complaint with Mr. Lapcevic after Lapcevic had informed Forte that he could not be involved with that case due to the City of Los Banos being a part of the pool of municipalities his firm may represent. It was not intentional, but only done in an attempt to protect Forte s rights (although not the rest of his family s rights) to pursue redress of a grievance against the Pleasanton defendants in the event Mr. Lapcevic decided it would be best for this subject litigation to omit them as defendants. Forte and the other plaintiffs will be prejudiced if Mr. Lapcevic is allowed to withdraw. Forte has not been able to find other counsel to substitute in, and his children would not be able to represent themselves, nor have Forte represent them. (See Decl. of Forte, ). Forte submits that it is not reasonable good cause for Mr. Lapcevic to claim irreconcilable differences based upon what has occurred here to be allowed to withdraw from this case. Forte certainly does not want to accept or believe that there is an ulterior motive underlying the Arata, Swingle, Sodhi & Van Egmond law firm in attempting to abandon plaintiffs herein under the guise of a purported conflict in order for Forte s adversaries and their insurer to gain an advantage. If Mr. Lapcevic continues to claim irreconcilable differences, Forte submits that this is unprofessional conduct and therefore, should this be the case, requests that this court adhere to the Northern District s Civil Rules -, on Discipline. V. CONCLUSION: THE REAL FLY IN THE OINTMENT Forte respectfully apologizes to the court for any repetitiveness in his papers but submits that he is not an attorney and only wants to emphasize and articulate in as many ways possible to convey to the court his position. Forte is no way feels there is a breakdown of communication with Mr. Lapcevic that would require, or permit the court to grant Mr. Lapcevic s withdrawal. The communications from Forte to Mr. Lapcevic have always conveyed a willingness to discuss this matter and resolve any issues. Opposition to Counsel Lapcevic s Motion to Withdraw C-0 DMR

19 Forte should not be punished by the denial of legal representation afforded him in his contract with Mr. Lapcevic by the Machiavellian machinations of the real fly in the ointment the insurance company providing the defense to the City of Los Banos and the Los Banos PD in the Eastern District complaint that also controls major revenues going to Mr. Lapcevic s firm. It is not unreasonable to surmise that more than likely the insurance carrier is threatening Mr. Lapcevic and his law firm that they will no longer receive income from them if they continue in their representation of Forte. Forte asserts that it is a stacking of the deck against Forte by the insurance provider who is now defending the City of Los Banos and the Los Banos Police Department in the Eastern District complaint. The motive of such is to cut off any income that may be generated by Forte from damages in a meritorious suit against the Pleasanton PD and Hyatt. The insurance provider s other ulterior motive is to undermine Forte s legal representation and anything which may come out in the subject complaint that would be detrimental to the Los Banos Police Department they are defending. Forte feels no ill will toward Mr. Lapcevic or his firm and feels that the insurance carrier is basically extorting Lapcevic to throw Forte overboard for their benefit. The court can put a stop to this by requiring Mr. Lapcevic and his firm to continue in their representation of Forte and let the chips fall as they may for the insurance carrier. If Mr. Lapcevic and his firm suffer financial repercussions from such, then they should take that up directly with their insurance carrier. 1 Dated: July, 0 Respectfully Submitted: Eugene Forte, In Propria Persona Opposition to Counsel Lapcevic s Motion to Withdraw C-0 DMR