David Bragg v. Martha Bragg, MASK U.S., Inc., and Does 1–20
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion by Hoffman & Forde to withdraw as counsel for corporate defendant MASK U.S., Inc. The court granted the motion to withdraw, conditioned on the firm remaining as counsel for 30 days to allow the corporation to secure new representation.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to withdraw as counsel for Defendant MASK U.S., Inc. granted“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel (ECF No. 12) is granted pursuant to the following conditions.” | agree with court The court applied the standard factors for withdrawal (prejudice, delay, administration of justice) and found good cause. It correctly identified that a corporation cannot appear pro se and imposed a 30-day period for the client to retain new counsel, which is a standard and appropriate procedural safeguard in this district. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the discretionary standard for withdrawal of counsel and the specific requirement that corporations must be represented by counsel. It appropriately balances the attorney's request against the client's need for representation by imposing a 30-day grace period, consistent with local practice and cited district court precedent.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 DAVID BRAGG, an individual, Case No.: 3:25-cv-02602-WQH-MMP 13 Plaintiff, ORDER 14 v. 15 MARTHA BRAGG, an individual; MASK U.S., INC., a California 16 Corporation; and DOES 1–20, 17 18 Defendants. 19 HAYES, Judge: 20 On October 1, 2025, Plaintiff David Bragg (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against 21 Defendants Martha Bragg, MASK U.S., Inc. (“MASK U.S.”), and Does 1–20. (ECF No. 22 1.) 23 On November 5, 2025, Defendant Martha Bragg filed an Answer. (ECF No. 5.) 24 On February 27, 2026, Defendant MASK U.S.’s counsel filed a Notice of 25 Withdrawal of Counsel stating that Hoffman & Forde, Attorneys at Law “hereby withdraws 26 as counsel of record for Defendant MASK U.S., Inc., effective upon the Court’s approval.” 27 (ECF No. 12 at 1–2.) The Court construes the Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel (ECF No. 28 12) as a motion to withdraw as counsel. 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). In evaluating a motion to 6 withdraw, courts consider: (1) the reasons for withdrawal; (2) the potential prejudice to 7 other litigants; (3) the “harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and 8 (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Leatt Corp. v. 9 Innovative Safety Tech., LLC, No. 09-CV-1301-IEG POR, 2010 WL 444708, at *1 (S.D. 10 Cal. Feb. 2, 2010) (citation omitted). 11 Counsel does not provide reasons for withdrawal. The Court finds limited risk of 12 prejudice to other litigants, as the Court is not aware of any settlement discussions between 13 the parties and no substantive motions have been filed. However, the Court notes that an 14 Early Neutral Evaluation conference is scheduled for March, 9, 2026 before Magistrate 15 Judge Michelle M. Pettit. (ECF No. 11.) The Court finds only limited risk of delay or harm 16 to the administration of justice because this case remains in an early stage. Accordingly, 17 the Court finds good cause to grant the motion to withdraw as counsel. 18 However, corporations “may appear in court only through an attorney.” Civ. L.R. 19 83.3(j); In re Am. West Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). Counsel 20 reports that “Hoffman & Forde has provided or will provide reasonable notice to MASK 21 U.S., Inc. and will take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice, including promptly 22 surrendering client papers and property and refunding any unearned fees as applicable, 23 consistent with governing rules.” (ECF No. 12 at 2.) Counsel does not, however, report 24 that Defendant MASK U.S. has been able to secure new representation. Id. The Court 25 concludes that more time is required to allow Defendant MASK U.S. to secure 26 representation. Ewing v. Gitre, No. 24-CV-1213-AGS-DDL, 2025 WL 1425551, at *1 27 (S.D. Cal. May 16, 2025) (giving 30 days to a corporate defendant to secure 28 1 ||representation); Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Global Fin. Support, Inc., No. 14-CV- 2 ||2400-GPC-WVG, 2019 WL 3068232, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 12, 2019) (same). 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel (ECF No. 12) 4 ||is granted pursuant to the following conditions. Dalia Ella Astalos and Michael Drew Dicks 5 Hoffman & Forde, Attorneys at Law shall be withdrawn as counsel for Defendant 6 || MASK U.S. upon the issuance of a subsequent Order thirty (30) days from the filing of 7 || this Order and may be withdrawn earlier if alternative counsel for the corporate defendant 8 || files a notice of appearance before thirty (30) days has expired. Counsel Dalia Ella Astalos 9 ||and Michael Drew Dicks continue to represent Defendant Martha Bragg. (See ECF No. 12 10 || at 2.) 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than seven (7) days from the entry of this 12 || Order, counsel from Hoffman & Forde, Attorneys at Law shall file a certificate of service 13 indicating that they have served Defendant MASK U.S. with a copy of this Order. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant MASK U.S. shall have thirty (30) days 15 || from the date of this Order to retain new counsel, and for such counsel to file a notice of 16 || appearance. 17 18 Dated: March 5, 2026 BME: Me Z. A a 19 Hon. William Q. Hayes 0 United States District Court 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28