Lopez v. Global Business Consultants

[6] 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [9] 10 MODESTO LOPEZ, an individual; and Case No.: 20-cv-1281-AJB (LL) KARLA LOPEZ, an individual, [11] Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF v. RECORD FOR PLAINTIFFS [13] MODESTO LOPEZ AND KARLA 14 LOPEZ GLOBAL BUSINESS CONSULTANTS, 15 (Doc. No. 5) a business entity, form unknown; 16 JAYSON OSCAR TAYLOR, an individual; MARK P. ROSSMAN, an [17] individual; ROBERT D. WELSH, an 18 individual; DANIEL CAMP, an individual; MICHAEL GALLAGHER, an [19] individual; HENRY COHEN, an 20 individual; and ANDREW DALEY, an individual, [21] 22 Defendants. [23] 24 Before the Court is a motion to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiffs, Modesto 25 Lopez and Karla Lopez, filed by Joseph G. Dicks of Dicks & Workman Attorneys at Law, 26 APC (“Dicks”), for Plaintiffs failure to pay agreed-upon attorney fees. (Doc. No. 5.) There 27 is no objection to Dicks’ motion. For the reasons set forth, the Court GRANTS his motion. 1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” Darby v. City 3 of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992). “The decision to grant or deny 4 counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial court.” Kassab v. 5 San Diego Police Dep’t, No. 07-cv-1071 WQH (WMc), 2008 WL 251935 , at *1 (S.D. Cal. 6 Jan. 29, 2008) (citation omitted). Moreover, the motion for leave to withdraw must be 7 supported by “good cause.” Evolv Health, LLC v. Cosway USA, Inc., No. 16-cv-1602 ODW 8 (ASx), 2017 WL 1534184 , at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2017) (citation omitted). In 9 determining whether good cause is shown, courts have considered: “(1) the reasons why 10 withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the 11 harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which 12 withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 13 07-cv-594 WQH (NLS), 2008 WL 410694 , at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008) (citation 14 omitted). Additionally, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3 “[a] notice of motion to withdraw 15 as attorney of record must be served on the adverse party and on the moving attorney’s 16 client.” Civil Local R. 83.3.f.3.a. Moreover, a declaration “pertaining to such service must 17 be filed.” Id. at f.3.b. 18 II. DISCUSSION 19 Upon consideration of Dicks’ motion and the reasons for withdrawal outlined in his 20 declaration, the Court finds that there is good cause to grant his motion to withdraw as 21 counsel of record for Plaintiffs. See Kassab, No. 07-cv-1071 WQH (WMc), 2008 WL 22 251935, at *1. According to Dicks, despite his numerous verbal and written 23 communications to Plaintiffs over several months, they have failed and refused to pay 24 outstanding fees, as well as failed and refused to maintain their required retainer balance— 25 as required under their written retainer agreement dated April 22, 2020. “[T]he failure of a 26 client to pay attorney’s fees will serve as grounds for an attorney to withdraw[.]” Darby, [27] 810 F. Supp. at 276 (citing Liberty–Ellis Island Foundation, Inc. v. International United 1 || Industries, Inc., 110 F.R.D. 395, 397 (S.D.N.Y.1986)). Moreover, Dicks has served 2 || Plaintiffs with a notice of his motion to withdraw. (Doc. Nos. 9, 10.) They have submitted 3 ||no objections. 4 In addition, the Court finds that Dicks’ withdrawal in this case will not prejudice the 5 || litigants as Plaintiffs still need to serve Defendants and have been granted an extension of 6 || up to and including March 5, 2021, to serve them. (Doc. No. 7.) Similarly, as the action 1s 7 ||in its beginning stages, the Court does not find that counsel’s early withdrawal will harm 8 ||the administration of justice or unnecessarily delay the resolution of this case. See Beard, 9 || No. 07-cv-594 WQH (NLS), 2008 WL 410694 , at *2. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the 10 |} Court GRANTS Dicks’ motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs. 11 HI. CONCLUSION 12 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to withdraw as counsel of 13 |/record for Plaintiffs, filed by Joseph G. Dicks, is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 5.) It is 14 |} FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs be deemed pro se. Should Plaintiffs retain new 15 ||counsel, such counsel must enter their appearance in this action in accordance with the 16 rules. Lastly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve Plaintiffs, Modesto Lopez 17 Karla Lopez, with a copy of this Order by mail. [18] 19 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: January 15, 2021 | ZS iz : LE 21 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 22 United States District Judge