Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES PATRICK HAYES, an Case No.: 25-CV-1742-GPC-BLM individual, 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 13 COUNSEL’S MOTION TO v. WITHDRAW 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, EL CAJON 15 [ECF No. 34] POLICE DEPARTMENT, KELLY 16 MARTINEZ in her individual capacity, JEREMIAH LARSON in his individual 17 capacity, SHERIFF’S DEPUTY DOES 1- 18 10, 19 Defendants. 20 21 This lawsuit arises from alleged mistreatment experienced by Plaintiff while in 22 custody at the San Diego County Sherriff’s Central Jail. See ECF No. 1. Currently pending 23 before the Court is Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel. ECF No. 34. 24 Defendants have not opposed the motion. Having considered Plaintiff’s counsel’s 25 unopposed motion, the Court GRANTS the motion to withdraw as counsel. 26 // 27 1 BACKGROUND 2 On July 8, 2025, Plaintiff James Patrick Hayes filed his complaint against 3 Defendants alleging fifteen separate claims regarding alleged mistreatment he experienced 4 at the San Diego County Sherriff’s Central Jail on the evening of February 8, 2025. ECF 5 No. 1. Plaintiff’s counsel now moves to withdraw based on one or more grounds specified 6 in the California Rules of Professional Conduct. See ECF No. 36. Defendants have not 7 opposed the motion, despite being given the opportunity to do so. See ECF No. 35. 8 Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that he has conferred with Plaintiff several times and 9 provided him with a formal letter explaining the circumstances giving rise to this motion. 10 ECF No. 36, at 2. Plaintiff has declined to respond. Id. 11 LEGAL STANDARD 12 “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” Darby v. City 13 of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992). Civil Local Rule 83.3(f)(3) further 14 requires an attorney to serve any motion to withdraw on the adverse party and his client 15 and to file a declaration pertaining to such service. Civ. L.R. 83.3(f)(3). The trial court has 16 discretion whether to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw in a civil case. See 17 La Grand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998); Stewart v. Boeing Co., No. CV- 18 12-5621-RSWL, 2013 WL 3168269, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2013). 19 Courts should consider the following factors when ruling upon a motion to withdraw 20 as counsel: (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may 21 cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of 22 justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case. Deal 23 v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. C09 01643 SBA, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 24 Sept. 15, 2010). 25 Danger of prejudice is minimized when a “case is still in its infancy,” “there are no 26 immediately scheduled hearings,” and the opposing party receives “notice of [counsel’s] 27 1 intent to withdraw.” Gurvey v. Legend Films, Inc., No. 09-CV-942-IEG, 2010 WL 2 2756944, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 12, 2010). Further, this district’s local rules incorporate “the 3 standards of professional conduct required by members of the State bar of California,” Civ. 4 L.R. 83.4(b), which in turn state that counsel is not to withdraw without taking “reasonable 5 steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving 6 due notice to the client [and] allowing time for employment of other counsel.” Skazzi3 7 Capital Ltd. v. Pathway Genomics Corp., No. 3:18-CV-00317-BEN, 2019 WL 6878871, 8 at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2019) (quoting Cal. R. of Prof. Conduct 3-700(A)(2)). 9 DISCUSSION 10 Here, counsel seeks to withdraw based on one or more grounds specified in the 11 California Rules of Professional Conduct. See ECF No. 36. Counsel has further complied 12 with the Civil Local Rules by filing a sworn declaration indicating that he has served his 13 motion to withdraw, declaration, statement of reasons in support of the motion to withdraw, 14 and proposed order on both opposing counsel and Plaintiff. See Civ. L.R. 83.3(f)(3); ECF 15 No. 34. 16 No party has opposed the motion, and no prejudice has been shown. Additionally, 17 this case is in its early stages, there are no pending hearings, and Defense counsel has 18 received notice of counsel’s intent to withdraw. See Gurvey, 2010 WL 2756944, at *1. 19 Plaintiff’s counsel has informed Plaintiff of the reasons for withdrawal and taken 20 steps to avoid prejudice to Plaintiff, such as completing efforts to obtain health records 21 which he will provide to Plaintiff and equipping Plaintiff with a summary of next steps in 22 this case. ECF No. 36, at 2. Should Plaintiff obtain new counsel, current counsel avers that 23 he will provide new counsel with the record and meet and confer to provide new counsel 24 with a full update on this matter. Id. at 2-3. 25 26 27 1 Given the early stage of the proceedings, there is no evidence that counsel’s 2 || withdrawal will delay this matter, nor that withdrawal might harm the administration of 3 || justice. 4 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's counsel’s motion to withdraw as 5 || counsel. 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that: 8 1. Plaintiff's counsel's motion to withdraw, ECF No. 34, is GRANTED; 9 2. The Clerk of Court SHALL update the docket to reflect the withdrawal of Mr. 10 Owen Roth and his law firm as counsel for Plaintiff; 11 3. The Court grants Plaintiff forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order to 12 obtain new counsel or notify the Court that he intends to proceed pro se; 13 4. Though relieved, counsel SHALL provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and 14 explain the above 45-day deadline; 15 5. The Court VACATES the hearing previously set for April 3, 2026. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: March 3, 2026 < 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 25-CV-1742-GPC-BLM