Sanchez v. Loews Hotels Holding Corporation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Thomas J. Whelan (author)
Analysis
The court considered an ex parte application by attorney Kristen L. Price to withdraw as counsel of record for the plaintiff. The court granted the application, finding that the withdrawal would not prejudice the litigants, harm the administration of justice, or delay the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the ex parte application to withdraw as counsel of record“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the application to withdraw as counsel of record in this action for Plaintiff. [Doc. 20.]” | agree with court The court applied the standard factors for attorney withdrawal in a civil case (reasons for withdrawal, prejudice to litigants, harm to administration of justice, and delay). The court found that, given the procedural posture and the fact that other attorneys (S. Todd Neal and Justin M. Martin) would continue to represent the plaintiff, the withdrawal would not cause prejudice, harm, or delay. This is a standard application of the discretionary factors for granting a motion to withdraw. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the discretionary nature of the decision and applies the standard four-factor test for attorney withdrawal in civil cases. It explicitly addresses the factors by noting the procedural posture and the continued representation by other attorneys, thereby concluding there is no prejudice, harm, or delay. The reasoning is sufficient for a routine motion to withdraw.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RAMON SANCHEZ, JR., Case No.: 19-CV-2084 W (MDD)
11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE 12 v. APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL [DOC. 20] 13 LOEWS HOTEL HOLDING CORPORATION, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 Pending before the Court is an ex parte application1 by Kristen L. Price to 18 withdraw as attorney of record for Plaintiff Ramon Sanchez Jr. [Doc. 20.] Despite 19 service of the motion on all parties on August 5, 2020, no 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 || *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009)). 4 Given the procedural posture of this case, Kristen Price’s withdrawal will not 5 || prejudice the litigants in this matter, harm the administration of justice, or delay 6 || resolution of the case. Plaintiff will continue to be represented through S. Todd Neal and 7 || Justin M. Martin of Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP. 8 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the application to withdraw as 9 || counsel of record in this action for Plaintiff. [Doc. 20.] 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: August 10, 2020 \ 4 [pe Dor 15 Hn. 1 omas J. Whelan 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28