Jane Doe Nos. 60 through 121 inclusive, individuals v. Aylo Media S.A.R.L., (f/k/a “MindGeek S.a.r.l.”) a foreign entity; Aylo Freesites, Ltd., (f/k/a “MG Freesites, Ltd.” and d/b/a “PornHub,” “YouPorn,” “RedTube,” and “Tube8”) a foreign entity; Aylo Billing US Corp., (f/k/a “MG Billing US Corp.” and d/b/a “ProBiller”) a Delaware corporation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
Defendants Aylo Holdings S.a.r.l., Aylo Freesites, Ltd., Aylo Billing US Corp., and 9219-1568 Quebec, Inc. moved to withdraw their current counsel, Mitchel Silberberg & Knupp LLP, stating they would continue to be represented by Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. The court granted the motion to withdraw.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (ECF No. 46) granted“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (ECF No. 46) granted.” | agree with court The court applied the standard four-factor test for withdrawal of counsel (reasons for withdrawal, prejudice to other litigants, harm to administration of justice, and delay). The record indicates that the moving party provided notice to the adverse party and that replacement counsel (Mintz, Levin) is in place, which typically satisfies the requirements for granting such a motion to avoid a gap in representation. The decision follows standard procedure. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for withdrawal of counsel and cites relevant authority. It notes that the moving party served the motion on the adverse party and that replacement counsel is in place, which addresses the primary concerns of prejudice and delay. The reasoning is sufficient for a routine procedural motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JANE DOE NOS. 60 through 121 Case No.: 23-cv-1821-WQH-KSC inclusive, individuals, 11 ORDER Plaintiffs, 12 v. 13 AYLO MEDIA S.A.R.L., (f/k/a 14 “MindGeek S.a.r.l.”) a foreign 15 entity; AYLO FREESITES, LTD., (f/k/a “MG Freesites, Ltd.” and 16 d/b/a “PornHub,” “YouPorn,” 17 “RedTube,” and “Tube8”) a foreign entity; AYLO BILLING US 18 CORP., (f/k/a “MG Billing US 19 Corp.” and d/b/a “ProBiller”) a Delaware corporation; 9219-1568 20 QUEBEC, INC., a foreign entity; 21 and AYLO HOLDINGS S.A.R.L., 22 Defendants. 23 HAYES, Judge: 24 The matter before the Court is the Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (ECF No. 46) 25 filed by Defendants Aylo Holdings S.a.r.l., Aylo Freesites, Ltd., Aylo Billing US Corp., 26 and 9219-1568 Quebec, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”). 27 28 1 “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court, and the decision 2 ||to grant or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial 3 court.” Urias v. Labcorp Peri-Approval & Commercialization Inc., No. 23-CV-1815 JLS 4 ||(MSB), 2023 WL 8845384, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2023) (citation omitted); see also 5 || United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009); S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 83.3(f)(3) 6 || (requiring that a notice of motion to withdraw as attorney of record be served on the adverse 7 || party and on the moving attorney’s client, along with a declaration of service). 8 In ruling on a motion to withdraw as counsel, courts consider: (1) the reasons 9 why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; 10 and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case. 11 || Leatt Corp. v. Innovative Safety Tech., LLC, No. 09-CV-1301-IEG POR, 2010 WL 444708, 12 *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2010) (citation omitted). 13 Here, Defendants move for an Order permitting Mitchel Silberberg & Knupp LLP, 14 |/and specifically its attorneys David A. Steinberg, Marc. E. Mayer, and Emily F. Evitt, to 15 || withdraw as counsel in this action. (ECF No. 46 at 2.) Defendants state that they will 16 || continue to be represented by Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. /d. In 17 support, Defendants submit a Declaration of Emily F. Evitt stating that copies of the motion 18 || have been served on counsel for Plaintiff. (ECF No. 46-1.) 19 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (ECF No. 46) 20 granted. Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, and its counsel David A. Steinberg, Mare 21 Mayer, and Emily F. Evitt, are withdrawn as attorneys of record for Defendants in this 22 || action. 23 24 25 ||Dated: February 27, 2026 itt Z. A a 26 Hon. William Q. Hayes 97 United States District Court 28