Campos-Eibeck v. C R Bard Incorporated
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Thomas J. Whelan (author)
Analysis
The court considered an ex parte application by three attorneys to withdraw as counsel of record for the plaintiff in a civil action. The court granted the application, finding that the withdrawal would not prejudice the litigants or the administration of justice, and noting that the plaintiff would continue to be represented by another attorney from the same firm.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the ex parte application to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff Catalina Campos-Eibeck.“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the application to withdraw as counsel of record in this action for Plaintiff Campos-Eibeck. [Doc. 22.]” | agree with court The court applied the standard discretionary factors for attorney withdrawal in civil cases. The order recites that no opposition was filed and that the plaintiff will remain represented by another attorney from the same firm, which directly addresses the factors of prejudice and delay. The decision follows logically from the stated facts and the cited legal standard. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the discretionary standard for attorney withdrawal and applies the relevant factors. It explicitly addresses the potential for prejudice and delay by noting the continued representation by a colleague from the same firm. The reasoning is sufficient for the procedural posture.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CATALINA CAMPOS-EIBECK, Case No.: 19-CV-2026 W (BLM)
11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE 12 v. APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL [DOC. 22] 13 C R BARD INC., et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Pending before the Court is an ex parte application1 by John Dalimonte, Paul L. Stoller, 17 and Ashley Crowell to withdraw as attorneys of record for Plaintiff Catalina Campos- 18 Eibeck. [Doc. 22.] Despite service of the motion on all parties on January 14, 2020, no 19 opposition has been filed. 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 27 28 1 || of the case.” CE Resource, Inc. v Magellan Group, LLC, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D. 2 ||Cal. Oct. 14, 2009) (citing Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, 2009 WL 89141, at 3 (ED. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009)). 4 Given the procedural posture of this case, Dalimonte, Stoller, and Crowell’s 5 || withdrawal will not prejudice the litigants in this matter, harm the administration of 6 justice, or delay resolution of the case. Plaintiff will continue to be represented through 7 ||Mr. Gregory D. Rueb of Dalimonte Rueb Stoller, LLP. 8 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the application to withdraw as 9 counsel of record in this action for Plaintiff Campos-Eibeck. [Doc. 22.] 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: January 17, 2020 \ 4 [pe Lon 15 Hn. 1 omas J. Whelan 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28