Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 CUEBIQ GROUP, LLC., Case No.: 25-cv-2255-JAH-DEB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENSE 11 v. COUNSELS’ MOTION TO 12 WITHDRAW PAEDAE, INC., dba GIMBAL and 13 operating as INFILLION, GIMBAL, INC., 14 [DKT. NO. 127] Defendants. 15 16 Before the Court is the Fish Attorneys’ Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for the 17 Gimbal Defendants.1 Dkt. No. 127. Plaintiff Cuebiq Group LLC opposes the Motion. 18 Dkt. No. 140. For the reasons stated herein, the Motion is GRANTED. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 The Fish Attorneys are Ricardo Bonilla, Aaron Pirouznia, Neil McNabnay, Madelyn 27 McCormick and Excylyn Hardin-Smith and Fish & Richardson P.C. (“Fish Attorneys”). The Gimbal Defendants are Defendants PaeDae Inc., d/b/a Gimbal and operating as 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 This case was transferred to this district from the Southern District of New York. 3 Following transfer, the Fish Attorneys appeared on behalf of the Gimbal Defendants. 4 This Court’s first scheduling order set a March 27, 2026 fact discovery cut-off. 5 Dkt. No. 85 at 6. The parties sought a 60-day extension of all scheduling order deadlines, 6 which the Court granted. Dkt. Nos. 102, 103. 7 The Fish Attorneys’ present Motion to Withdraw comes on the heels of (and possibly 8 arises out of) multiple violations of Court-imposed deadlines for the Gimbal Defendants to 9 respond to Cuebiq’s discovery requests. On April 17, 2026, following an Informal 10 Discovery Conference initiated by Cuebiq, the Court ordered the Gimbal Defendants to: 11 (1) commence a rolling production of documents the week of April 20, 2026; (2) complete 12 and certify completion of its document production on or before May 1, 2026; and (3) serve 13 verified interrogatory responses on or before May 1, 2026. Dkt. No. 117. 14 After the Gimbal Defendants failed to comply with the Order, Plaintiff Cuebiq filed 15 an Ex Parte Motion for Sanctions. Dkt. No. 119. The Court denied this request without 16 prejudice and set a new, May 6, 2026, deadline for the Gimbal Defendants to serve their 17 responses. Dkt. No. 124. 18 On May 8, 2026, after the Gimbal Defendants failed to comply with the Court’s 19 second Order, Cuebiq renewed its Ex Parte Motion for Sanctions. Dkt. No. 126. The Court 20 granted the renewed sanctions Motion and set a third, June 29, 2026, deadline for the 21 Gimbal Defendants to serve their discovery responses. Dkt. No. 137. The Court also issued 22 an Order to Show Cause why the Gimbal Defendants’ counterclaim should not be 23 dismissed due to their failure to comply with the Court’s orders. Dkt. No. 138. 24 On May 8, 2026, the Fish Attorneys filed the present Motion to withdraw from their 25 representation of the Gimbal Defendants. Dkt. No. 127. Shortly thereafter, attorneys 26 Jodi Benassi and Amol Parikh from the law firm McDermott Will & Shulte (“McDermott”) 27 filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of the Gimbal Defendants. Dkt. No. 128. 28 // 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 The Fish Attorneys’ Motion represents that: (1) the Gimbal Defendants consent to 3 their withdrawal; (2) the McDermott attorneys will take over the Gimbal Defendants’ 4 representation; and (3) the Motion is made in good faith. Dkt. No. 127. Cuebiq opposes the 5 Motion, alleging the withdrawal of the Fish Attorneys: (1) will unduly delay resolution of 6 this case; and (2) complicates Cuebiq’s ability to assert the Fish Attorneys may have filed 7 a frivolous counterclaim. Dkt. No. 140. The Court, however, finds that Cuebiq’s objections 8 do not outweigh the Gimbal Defendants’ and the Fish Attorneys’ mutual desire to end their 9 attorney-client relationship. 10 “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” Darby v. City 11 of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992); see also Matter of Saber, 12 No. 21-55913, 2022 WL 11592836, at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022). In ruling on a motion to 13 withdraw as counsel, courts consider: “(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the 14 prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to 15 the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the 16 resolution of the case.” Saber, 2022 WL 11592836, at *1 (quoting Williams v. County of 17 Fresno, 562 F. Supp. 3d 1032, 1035 (E.D. Cal. 2021)). “Ultimately, ‘[t]he decision to 18 permit counsel to withdraw is within the sound discretion of the trial court.’” 19 Westhoff Vertriebsges mbH v. Berg, No. 22-cv-0938-BAS-SBC, 2024 WL 947803, at *1 20 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2024) (citation omitted). 21 In this District, a motion to withdraw must: (1) be served on the adverse party and 22 moving attorney’s client; and (2) include a declaration regarding service of the motion on 23 those parties. CivLR 83.3(f)(3). “Failure to make [service] as required . . . or to file the 24 required declaration of service will result in a denial of the motion.” Id. 25 As a preliminary matter, the Fish Attorneys have complied with Local Rule 26 83.3(f)(3). Dkt. No. 127. 27 The Court has considered all the surrounding circumstances and exercises its 28 discretion to permit the Fish Attorneys to withdraw. The docket reflects a breakdown in 1 the relationship between the Fish Attorneys and the Gimbal Defendants. See Dkt. No. 135 2 at 6; Dkt. No. 140 at 9; Dkt. No. 145-1 at 2–4. And the Fish Attorneys and the Gimbal 3 Defendants both desire to end their attorney-client relationship. Under these circumstances, 4 it would be unfair to force both to continue in an apparently broken relationship, especially 5 when the Gimbal Defendants have retained new counsel. 6 The Court also finds any prejudice or delay that may result from allowing the Fish 7 Attorneys’ withdrawal does not justify denying their Motion to Withdraw. This case still 8 is in pretrial discovery, and the McDermott attorneys have taken over the Gimbal 9 Defendants’ representation and are actively litigating the case. Moreover, the Fish 10 Attorneys have “helped [the McDermott attorneys] get up to speed” and have represented 11 they will “continue to assist [the McDermott attorneys] with getting up to speed until this 12 motion is granted or further, if needed.” Dkt. No 142 at 2. 13 In sum, the Court finds good cause exists to relieve the Fish Attorneys and exercises 14 its discretion to permit the substitution. The Court expects new counsel to familiarize 15 themselves with the case promptly and ensure their substitution does not unduly delay 16 pretrial proceedings. 17 III. CONCLUSION 18 For the foregoing reasons, the Fish Attorneys’ Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED. 19 Dkt. No. 127. Fish & Richardson P.C. and attorneys Ricardo Bonilla, Aaron Pirouznia, 20 Neil McNabnay, Madelyn McCormick and Excylyn Hardin-Smith are relieved as counsel 21 of record in this action. 22 1. The Clerk’s Office is directed to terminate Ricardo Bonilla, Aaron Pirouznia, Neil 23 McNabnay, Madelyn McCormick and Excylyn Hardin-Smith and Fish & 24 Richardson P.C. on the docket. 25 2. To the extent additional attorneys from McDermott Will & Emery have not entered 26 appearances in the docket, the Court encourages them to do so immediately. 27 // 28 // l 3. All future filings and communications shall be served upon Defendants through their 2 current counsel of record, attorneys from McDermott Will & Emery. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: June 30, 2026 - ‘ 6 Daniel E. Butcher United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28