Watkins v. Dollar Tree
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff's counsel moved to withdraw from the case, but the court noted that new counsel had not yet appeared or moved for substitution, and that discovery and a case management conference were imminent. The court denied the motion to withdraw without prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel Denied Without Prejudice“For these reasons, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that an attorney must obtain leave to withdraw and that the decision is within the court's discretion. The court identified a valid reason for denial: the lack of substituted counsel to protect the plaintiff's interests during pending discovery and upcoming hearings. Denying the motion without prejudice is a standard procedural mechanism to allow the attorney to refile once substitution is complete. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It cites the correct Ninth Circuit authority regarding the requirement for leave to withdraw and the court's discretion. It provides specific factual reasons for the denial (no new counsel of record, pending discovery, upcoming CMC) which justify the exercise of discretion to prevent prejudice to the plaintiff. The 'without prejudice' designation appropriately balances the attorney's request with the need for continuity of representation.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 WATKINS, Case No.: 3:20-cv-717-L-MSB 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER ON MOTION TO 12 DOLLAR TREE, INC., WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL 13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Sallie Blackman’s unopposed motion to withdraw as 16 Plaintiff’s counsel. (ECF 31). 17 An attorney must obtain leave of court to withdraw as counsel. United States v. 18 Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009). The matter is within the Court’s discretion. 19 Id. 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// l Blackman received a letter from Nourmand Law Firm in September 2021 that 2 indicated Plaintiff retained them to represent her in this action. But Plaintiff's new 3 ||counsel has not appeared in this matter or moved to substitute as counsel. (See Docket); 4 || Civ. L. R. 83.3. Defendant continues to serve discovery on Blackman, and Plaintiff's 5 || deposition is noticed for December 10, 2021. There is also a case management 6 conference in one week. For these reasons, the Court DENIES the motion without 7 || prejudice. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: November 23, 2021 pee ep? 11 H . James Lorenz, United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28