McPhail v. FCA US, LLC.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion by Strategic Legal Practices, APC to withdraw as counsel for the plaintiffs due to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and the plaintiffs' failure to communicate. The court granted the motion, ordered the firm to serve the order on the plaintiffs, and gave the plaintiffs 21 days to obtain new counsel or proceed pro se.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel Granted“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 18) is granted.” | agree with court The court applied the standard four-factor test for withdrawal of counsel (reasons for withdrawal, prejudice to litigants, harm to administration of justice, and delay). The record indicates a complete breakdown in communication, which is a recognized ground for withdrawal. The court found good cause, which is consistent with the cited authorities and the facts presented in the motion. |
Order to Serve Order on Plaintiffs“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than seven (7) days from the entry of this Order, SLP shall file a certificate of service indicating that it has served Plaintiffs with a copy of this Order.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural requirement to ensure the client is notified of the withdrawal, consistent with local rules and due process. |
Deadline to Obtain New Counsel or Proceed Pro Se“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall have twenty-one (21) days from date of this Order to obtain new counsel and have counsel file a notice of appearance.” | agree with court Setting a reasonable deadline for a party to retain new counsel after a withdrawal is a standard exercise of the court's case management authority to prevent undue delay. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standard for withdrawal of counsel (discretionary, four-factor test) and applies it to the specific facts presented (breakdown in communication, no prejudice due to early stage of litigation). It cites appropriate district court and circuit authority as well as local rules. The procedural orders regarding service and the deadline for new counsel are standard and appropriate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 PRISCILLA I. MCPHAIL and Case No.: 24-cv-1879-WQH-DDL JAMES B. MCPHAIL, 10 ORDER Plaintiffs, 11 v. 12 FCA US, LLC, and DOES 1 13 through 10, inclusive, 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 The matter before the Court is the Motion for an Order Granting Strategic Legal 19 Practices, APC Leave to Withdraw as Counsel of Record for Plaintiff[s] (the “Motion to 20 Withdraw”) (ECF No. 18) filed by Strategic Legal Practices, APC (“SLP”), the law firm 21 representing Plaintiffs Priscilla I. McPhail and James B. McPhail (collectively, 22 “Plaintiffs”) in this action. 23 “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court, and the decision 24 to grant or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial 25 court.” Urias v. Labcorp Peri-Approval & Commercialization Inc., No. 23-CV-1815 JLS 26 (MSB), 2023 WL 8845384, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2023) (citation omitted); see also 27 United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009); S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 83.3(f)(3) 28 1 (requiring that a notice of motion to withdraw as attorney of record be served on the adverse 2 party and on the moving attorney’s client, along with a declaration of service). 3 In ruling on a motion to withdraw as counsel, courts consider: (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other 4 litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; 5 and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.
6 Leatt Corp. v. Innovative Safety Tech., LLC, No. 09-CV-1301-IEG POR, 2010 WL 444708, 7 at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2010) (citation omitted). 8 SLP asserts in the Motion to Withdraw that “a complete and irreparable breakdown 9 of the attorney-client relationship has occurred that has made it unreasonably difficult for 10 SLP to carry out the representation effectively.” (ECF No. 18 at 5.) SLP explains that, 11 “despite numerous attempts by SLP” to contact Plaintiffs, “Plaintiffs have failed and 12 refused to communicate with, respond to and cooperate with SLP.” Id. SLP requests the 13 Court relieve its attorneys as counsel for Plaintiffs “because it is impossible for SLP to 14 continue representing Plaintiffs without being able to communicate with them.” Id. at 6. 15 SLP contends that granting the Motion to Withdraw will not cause prejudice to Plaintiffs 16 or Defendant FCA US, LLC (“Defendant”) “because this case is still in its initial stages 17 and a trial date has not yet been assigned.” Id. In a declaration attached to the Motion to 18 Withdraw, SLP attorney Rabiya Tirmizi details SLP’s attempts to communicate with 19 Plaintiffs. See id. at 7–8. SLP also attached Certificates of Service demonstrating that it 20 served the Motion to Withdraw on Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendant, in compliance 21 with S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 83.8(f)(3)(a). See id. at 9–11. 22 The Court finds that good cause exists to grant the Motion to Withdraw. 23 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 18) is granted. 24 SLP and attorneys Rabiya F. Tirmizi, Tionna Carvalho, and Elizabeth A. LaRocque are 25 withdrawn as counsel of record in this action. 26 27 28 l IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than seven (7) days from the entry of this 2 Order, SLP shall file a certificate of service indicating that it has served Plaintiffs with a 3 || copy of this Order. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall have twenty-one (21) days from 5 date of this Order to obtain new counsel and have counsel file a notice of appearance. 6 || notice of appearance is filed, the Court will deem Plaintiffs as proceeding pro se. “A 7 party proceeding pro se must keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to current 8 ||address.” S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 83.11(b). “Failure to comply [] may be ground[s] for 9 || dismissal ....” S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 83.11(a). 10 || Dated: March 3, 2025 itt Z. Ma 11 Hon. William Q. Hayes 2 United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28