Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Case No.: 22-cv-219-WQH-SBC COMMISSION, 13 Plaintiff, ORDER 14 v. 15 GLOBAL WHOLEHEALTH 16 PARTNERS CORP., CHARLES STRONGO, BRIAN M. VOLMER, 17 JOSHUA YAFA, JAMIE YAFA, and EMPIRE ASSOCIATES INC., 18 19 Defendants. 20 HAYES, Judge: 21 On September 9, 2025, Rosing Pott & Strohbehn filed a Motion to Withdraw as 22 Counsel for Defendants Global Wholehealth Partners Corp. (“GWHP”) and Charles 23 Strongo (“Strongo”) pursuant to Local Rule 83.3(f)(3). (ECF No. 55.) 24 On September 30, 2025, Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) 25 filed a Non-Opposition to the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and a Status Report. (ECF 26 No. 57.) 27 In its filing, Plaintiff reports that “the SEC has been in contact with Defendants’ 28 counsel and with pro se Defendant Brian Volmer to discuss settlement” despite all named 1 Defendants’ failure to timely respond to the Complaint. Id. “Several of those discussions 2 have been productive, and SEC counsel has provided settlement documents to Volmer and 3 counsel for Defendants Joshua Yafa and Jamie Yafa for their consideration. Since counsel 4 for [GWHP] moved to withdraw, SEC counsel has also—with defense counsel’s consent— 5 discussed a potential resolution with representatives of [GWHP.]” Id. Plaintiff accordingly 6 “does not intend to seek entry of default against Defendants for at least 60 days to continue 7 settlement discussions.” Id. 8 “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court, and the decision 9 to grant or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial 10 court.” Urias v. Labcorp Peri-Approval & Commercialization Inc., No. 23-CV-1815 JLS 11 (MSB), 2023 WL 8845384, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2023) (citation omitted); see also 12 United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009). In evaluating a motion to 13 withdraw, courts consider: (1) the reasons for withdrawal; (2) the potential prejudice to 14 other litigants; (3) the “harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and 15 (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Leatt Corp. v. 16 Innovative Safety Tech., LLC, No. 09-CV-1301-IEG POR, 2010 WL 444708, at *1 (S.D. 17 Cal. Feb. 2, 2010) (citation omitted). 18 The Court finds good cause to grant the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. Counsel 19 “has had no contact with [Defendant] Strongo since 2022. . . . [d]espite several attempts to 20 communicate with him via telephone, text, and email.” (ECF No. 55-1 at 3.) “Counsel has 21 been much more successful in communicating with GWHP, but the company has not been 22 able to come up with the funds for continued representation.” Id. Failure to pay attorneys 23 fees may constitute “a valid ground for withdrawal,” Leatt Corp., 2010 WL 444708 at *2, 24 and Defendant GWHP “has not paid [Rosing Pott & Strohbehn] since the firm’s founding 25 in December 2024.” (ECF No. 55-2 at 3.) 26 The Court finds limited risk of prejudice to other litigants. Based on the status report 27 filed by Plaintiff SEC, settlement discussions with Defendants Volmer, Joshua Yafa, and 28 Jamie Yafa have been “productive,” but settlement discussions with Defendant GWHP are 1 at an earlier stage: “SEC counsel . . . discussed a potential resolution with representatives 2 of [GWHP.]” (ECF No. 57.) The Court is unaware of any settlement discussions between 3 Plaintiff and Defendant Strongo. The Court also finds only limited risk of delay or harm to 4 the administration of justice because this case remains in a nascent stage and the parties 5 are maintaining regular communication regarding a potential resolution. 6 Corporations, however, “may appear in court only through an attorney.” Civ. L.R. 7 83.3(j); In re Am. West Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). Defense 8 counsel reports that Defendant “GWHP had been advised verbally and in writing of [his] 9 intent to move to withdraw” and that his Motion to Withdraw as Counsel was “served[] by 10 email” to Defendant GWHP, but does not report that Defendant GWHP has been able to 11 secure new representation as of yet. (ECF No. 55-2.) The Court finds that more time is 12 required to allow Defendant GWHP to secure representation. Ewing v. Gitre, No. 24-CV- 13 1213-AGS-DDL, 2025 WL 1425551, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 16, 2025) (giving 30 days to a 14 corporate defendant to secure representation); Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Global Fin. 15 Support, Inc., No. 14-CV-2400-GPC-WVG, 2019 WL 3068232, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 12, 16 2019) (same). 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (ECF No. 55) 18 is granted in part. Earll M. Pott of Rosing Pott & Strohbehn is withdrawn as counsel of 19 record for Defendant Strongo in this action as of the filing of this Order. Earll M. Pott shall 20 be withdrawn as counsel for Defendant GWHP upon the issuance of a subsequent Order 21 thirty (30) days from the filing of this Order and may be withdrawn earlier if alternative 22 counsel for the corporate defendant files a notice of appearance before thirty (30) days has 23 expired. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than seven (7) days from the entry of this 25 Order, Mr. Pott shall file a certificate of service indicating that he has served Defendant 26 Strongo and Defendant GWHP with a copy of this Order. 27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Strongo shall have twenty-one (21) 28 days from the date of this Order to retain new counsel, and for such counsel to file a notice 1 ||of appearance. If no notice of appearance is filed within that time, the Court will deem 2 || Defendant Strongo as proceeding pro se. 3 4 5 || Dated: November 17, 2025 Nitta Ze. A a 6 Hon, William Q. Hayes 7 United States District Court 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28