Perez v. Worldwide Flight Services, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Thomas J. Whelan (author)
Analysis
Attorneys Stephen Mitchell and Heng G. Shi filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Erika Perez, which the defendants did not oppose and the plaintiff consented to. The court granted the motion, ordering the attorneys' withdrawal and noting the plaintiff will proceed pro se unless new counsel is obtained.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel granted“Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the withdrawal and ORDERS that the docket reflect Attorney Shi’s and Attorney Mitchell’s withdrawal from the case.” | agree with court The court applied the standard discretionary factors for withdrawal in a civil case (reasons, prejudice, harm to administration of justice, delay). The record indicates the plaintiff consented, the defendants did not oppose, and the plaintiff was informed of the consequences (pro se status). This satisfies the typical requirements for granting such a motion. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the discretionary nature of the decision and applies the standard four-factor test. It notes the lack of opposition from defendants and the consent of the plaintiff, which are key factors in minimizing prejudice and delay. The reasoning is sufficient for this procedural matter.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIKA PEREZ, Case No.: 19-CV-1626 W (KSC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL [DOC. 14] 14 WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICES, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Attorneys Stephen Mitchell and Heng G. Shi have filed a motion to withdraw as 18 attorneys of record for Plaintiff Erika Perez. [Doc. 14.] Defendants do not oppose. 19 [Doc. 15.] 20 “The grant or denial of an attorney’s motion to withdraw in a civil case is a matter 21 addressed to the discretion of the trial court . . . .” Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, 22 Inc., 694 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1982). Factors considered in evaluating the 23 application include: “1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; 2) the prejudice 24 withdrawal may cause to other litigants; 3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the 25 administration of justice; and 4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution 26 of the case.” CE Resource, Inc. v Magellan Group, LLC, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D. 27 28 1 || Cal. Oct. 14, 2009) (citing Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, 2009 WL 89141, at 2 || *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009)). 3 Plaintiff has consented to the withdrawal and been informed that Plaintiff will be 4 || acting pro se moving forward unless new counsel is obtained. (Mot. to Withdraw [Doc. 5 || 14] 2:5-8.) As noted, other litigants in this case have not opposed the application to 6 || withdraw. Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the withdrawal and ORDERS 7 || that the docket reflect Attorney Shi’s and Attorney Mitchell’s withdrawal from the case. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: January 6, 2020 \ [pe Dor 12 Hn. 1 omas J. Whelan 13 Unted States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28