Jason Helfrich and Vanessa Helfrich v. James Punghorst and Sharlene Swanberg
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court considered an unopposed motion by defense counsel to withdraw as counsel of record due to the attorney's medical issues. The court granted the motion, finding good cause and no prejudice to the parties, and ordered the attorney to provide the defendants' contact information to facilitate their transition to pro se status.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record for Defendants granted“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion (ECF No. 54).” | agree with court The court applied the standard four-factor test for withdrawal of counsel (reasons, prejudice, harm to administration of justice, delay). The record indicates the motion was unopposed, the attorney cited medical issues (a recognized ground for withdrawal under Model Rules 1.16(a)(3)), and the case was in early discovery, minimizing the risk of delay or prejudice. The decision follows logically from the cited authorities and the facts recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable standard of review (discretionary) and the relevant factors for withdrawal. It applies these factors to the specific facts (medical issues, unopposed motion, early stage of litigation) and reaches a defensible conclusion. The citation to Ninth Circuit authority (In re Saber) supports the finding that early-stage litigation minimizes prejudice from a change in counsel. The reasoning is complete and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON HELFRICH and VANESSA Case No.: 25-CV-224 JLS (MMP) HELFRICH, 12 ORDER GRANTING PETER N. Plaintiffs, 13 GREENFELD’S UNOPPOSED v. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS 14 COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR JAMES PUNGHORST and SHARLENE 15 DEFENDANTS SWANBERG, 16 Defendants. (ECF No. 54) 17 18 Presently before the Court is Peter N. Greenfeld’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel 19 of Record for Defendants (“Mot.,” ECF No. 54). Plaintiffs do not oppose the Motion. See 20 generally Docket. 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). “The California Rules of Professional Conduct 3 require withdrawal when an attorney’s physical condition would make effective 4 representation unreasonably difficult.” Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Golden Sunrise 5 Nutraceutical, Inc., No. 20-CV-1060-DAD-SKO, 2022 WL 673778, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6 7, 2022); see Model Rules of Prof. Conduct R.1.16(a)(3). 7 Here, good cause exists to grant the Motion. Peter N. Greenfeld states that he does 8 not have the ability to represent Defendants due to multiple medical issues causing him to 9 significantly taper down his practice. Mot. at 1–2. Mr. Greenfeld says that Defendants 10 have known for months the need to retain new counsel, have “repeatedly expressed their 11 understanding of [Mr. Greenfeld’s] health issues and the need to withdraw,” and did not 12 object to the Motion. Id. at 2. The Court concludes that Mr. Greenfeld provided 13 Defendants with sufficient notice that he would withdraw and sufficient grounds exist for 14 withdrawal. 15 The Court also concludes that Mr. Greenfeld’s withdrawal would not unduly 16 prejudice the parties, harm the administration of justice, or unduly delay the resolution of 17 this case. This case is in its early stages as it continues through discovery. See generally 18 Docket. Given this early stage of litigation, “there is sufficient time for a new counsel to 19 be hired and then familiarized with the case without unduly delaying proceedings or 20 prejudicing [any Parties].” Stanz, 2025 WL 417935, at *1 (citing In re Saber, No. 21- 21 55913, 2022 WL 11592836, at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022)). 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion (ECF No. 54). The Clerk of the Court 2 || SHALL update the docket to reflect the withdrawal of Peter N. Greenfeld as counsel for 3 || Defendants. Mr. Greenfeld SHALL provide Defendants’ contact information by June 11, 4 ||2026, so the Clerk can update CM/ECF to reflect that Defendants are now proceeding pro 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 |\Dated: June 5, 2026 9 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28