Emmanuel Haro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Albertson’s LLC, et. al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint stipulation by the parties to dismiss class claims and for plaintiff's counsel to withdraw. The court granted the motion to dismiss the class claims without prejudice but denied the motion to withdraw counsel without prejudice due to a failure to comply with local rule requirements for service and declaration.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to dismiss class claims granted“Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss the class claims [ECF No. 19] without prejudice.” | agree with court The court accepted the parties' joint stipulation to dismiss the class claims. Dismissal of class claims by stipulation is a common procedural mechanism, and the court's acceptance of the stipulation is consistent with the parties' agreement and the preservation of the plaintiff's individual claims. |
Motion to withdraw as counsel denied“The Court therefore DENIES the motion to withdraw D.Law Inc. as counsel for Plaintiff, without prejudice.” | agree with court The court applied Civil Local Rule 83.3(f)(3), which mandates that a motion to withdraw must be served on the adverse party and the client, accompanied by a declaration of service. The court found the joint stipulation did not comply with this specific local rule requirement. While the parties may have agreed to the withdrawal, the local rule imposes procedural prerequisites that the court is bound to enforce. Denying the motion without prejudice allows the attorney to refile with proper compliance. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the two distinct motions contained within the joint stipulation. It properly grants the dismissal of class claims based on the stipulation. It correctly denies the motion to withdraw counsel because the stipulation failed to meet the specific procedural requirements of Civil Local Rule 83.3(f)(3) regarding service and declaration. The reasoning is direct and applies the cited local rule accurately to the facts presented.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 EMMANUEL HARO, on behalf of Case No. 3:26-cv-2120-RSH-DDL himself and all others similarly situated, 11 and the general public, ORDER (1) GRANTING JOINT 12 Plaintiff, MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF CLASS CLAIMS AND (2) DENYING 13 vs. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL 14 ALBERTSON’S LLC, et. al, [ECF Nos. 15, 16, 19] 15 Defendants.
16 17 Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Stipulation for Entry of an Order Dismissing 18 Class Claims and Relieving D.Law Inc. as Counsel for Plaintiff. ECF No. 19. The Court 19 construes the Joint Stipulation as two motions: a motion to dismiss the class claims, and 20 a motion to withdraw as attorney. 21 I. MOTION TO DISMISS CLASS CLAIMS 22 Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss the class 23 claims [ECF No. 19] without prejudice. Plaintiff’s individual claims remain. Id. at 2. 24 The Parties stipulate that upon dismissal of the class claims, Defendants withdraw 25 their motions to set a briefing schedule on Plaintiff’s motion for class certification, ECF 26 No. 15, and for a stay pending resolution of class action settlement in an earlier-filed 27 state court case, ECF No. 16. These motions [ECF Nos. 15, 16] are therefore deemed 1/11. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL 2 “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” Darby vy. 3|| City of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992). Civil Local Rule 83.3(f)(3) further requires an attorney to serve any motion to withdraw on the adverse party and 5|| his client and to file a declaration pertaining to such service. Civ. L.R. 83.3(f)(3). Failure to do so “will result in a denial of the motion.” Jd. 7 Here, the Joint Stipulation does not comply with Civ. L.R. 83.3(f)(3). The Court therefore DENIES the motion to withdraw D.Law Inc. as counsel for Plaintiff, without prejudice. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 11} Dated: August 13, 2026 febu z How 12 Hon. Robert S. Huie 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28