Jill Ghianni v. David Steiner, U.S. Postmaster General, in his official capacity
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court considered an unopposed motion by plaintiff's counsel to withdraw from representation due to the plaintiff's failure to pay fees. The court granted the motion, ordered the plaintiff to proceed pro se, and vacated a scheduled hearing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Donald R. Holben & Associates, APC’s Unopposed Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Jill Ghianni“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion (ECF No. 22).” | agree with court The court correctly applied the four-factor test for attorney withdrawal (reasons, prejudice, harm to administration of justice, delay). The record indicates the firm provided notice and the plaintiff failed to cure the fee default, satisfying the 'good cause' requirement under Model Rule 1.16(b)(5). The court also correctly noted that the early stage of litigation (pending motion to dismiss) minimizes prejudice and delay. |
Vacating the May 7, 2026 hearing“The Court VACATES the May 7, 2026, hearing.” | agree with court Vacating the hearing is a logical procedural consequence of the attorney's withdrawal, as the hearing was likely scheduled for the represented party. The court has discretion to manage its docket in this manner. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and applies the appropriate legal standards for attorney withdrawal. It cites relevant district court precedent and Ninth Circuit authority to support its conclusion that good cause exists and that withdrawal will not prejudice the parties or the administration of justice. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for an unopposed motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JILL GHIANNI, Case No.: 24-CV-2332 JLS (GC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) GRANTING DONALD R. 13 v. HOLBEN & ASSOCIATES, APC’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO BE 14 DAVID STEINER, U.S. Postmaster RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR General, in his official capacity, 15 PLAINTIFF JILL GHIANNI AND (2) Defendant. VACATING HEARING 16 17 (ECF No. 22)
18 Presently before the Court is Donald R. Holben & Associates, APC’s Unopposed 19 Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Jill Ghianni (“Mot.,” ECF No. 22). 20 Defendant does not oppose the Motion. See generally ECF No. 25. 21 “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court, and the decision 22 to grant or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial 23 court.” Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 07-CV-594-WQH (NLS), 2008 WL 410694, 24 at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008) (alterations, citations, and internal quotation marks 25 omitted); see also Civ. L.R. 83.3(g)(3). “In ruling on a motion to withdraw as counsel, 26 courts consider: (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal 27 may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of 28 justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Stanz 1 v. Brown, No. 22-CV-1164-GPC-JLB, 2025 WL 417935, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2025) 2 (citing Beard, 2008 WL 410694, at *2). “Failure to pay attorney’s fees can be a valid 3 ground for withdrawal.” Leatt Corp. v. Innovative Safety Tech., LLC, No. 09-CV-1301- 4 IEG (POR), 2010 WL 444708, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2010); see Model Rules of Prof. 5 Conduct R.1.16(b)(5) (allowing withdrawal if “the client fails substantially to fulfill an 6 obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable 7 warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled”). 8 Here, good cause exists to grant the Motion. Donald R. Holben & Associates, APC 9 (the, “Firm”) seek withdrawal because Ms. Ghianni has not fulfilled her obligations under 10 their fee agreement. Mot. at 4. The Firm has “had various telephone conversations with 11 Ms. Ghianni and exchanged emails with her on October 29, 2025, regarding the importance 12 of her fulfilling all of her obligations under the Fee Agreement.” Id. The Firm has provided 13 Ms. Ghianni with written notice that the Firm will request to withdraw if she did not fulfill 14 her obligations. Id. Ms. Ghianni has still not fulfilled her obligations under the fee 15 agreement, and the Firm concludes that these obligations “are material, directly relate to 16 the representation of Ms. Ghianni in this case, and make it unreasonably difficult for the 17 Firm to carry out her representation effectively.” Id. The Court concludes that the Firm 18 has provided Ms. Ghianni with sufficient notice that it would withdraw. 19 The Court also concludes that the Firm’s withdrawal would not unduly prejudice the 20 parties, harm the administration of justice, or unduly delay the resolution of this case. This 21 case is in its early stages as there is a fully briefed motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16) pending. 22 See generally Docket. Given this early stage of litigation, “there is sufficient time for a 23 new counsel to be hired and then familiarized with the case without unduly delaying 24 proceedings or prejudicing [any Parties].” Stanz, 2025 WL 417935, at *1 (citing In re 25 Saber, No. 21-55913, 2022 WL 11592836, at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022)). 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion (ECF No. 22). The Clerk of the Court 2 ||SHALL update the docket to reflect the withdrawal of Donald R. Holben & Associates, 3 || APC as counsel for Plaintiff and SHALL remove them from the CM/ECF service list for 4 ||this matter. The Clerk of Court SHALL update the CM/ECF service list to reflect that 5 || Plaintiff is now proceeding pro se unless and until she obtains representation. The Clerk 6 || SHALL update Plaintiff's contact information to the following: Jill Ghianni, 5965 Village 7 || Way, #105, San Diego, California 92130; Tel: 858-207-8794; Email: nacajill@yahoo.com. 8 || The Court notes that Plaintiff does not have pro se electronic filing privileges. She will 9 therefore be served by mail unless and until she receives Court approval for electronic 10 || filing privileges, pursuant to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California’s 11 || Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual Section 2(b). The 12 ||Court VACATES the May 7, 2026, hearing. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: April 24, 2026 ok 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28