Berry v. County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- John A. Houston (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff's counsel filed a motion to withdraw from representation, citing difficulties and the early stage of the litigation. The court granted the motion to withdraw, finding good cause and no prejudice to the plaintiff or the administration of justice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to withdraw as attorney granted“the Court concludes that there is good cause to grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and that the withdrawal will not prejudice Plaintiff or justice, nor lead to an unduly delayed resolution of the case because of the current stage of the proceedings.” | agree with court The court applied the standard four-factor test for withdrawal of counsel (reasons for withdrawal, prejudice to litigants, harm to administration of justice, and delay). The order recites that counsel provided a declaration citing difficulties and that the case is in the early stages. Based on these recited facts, the conclusion that there is good cause and no prejudice is a logical application of the cited legal standard. The decision follows from the law and the record as summarized in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for withdrawal of counsel and applies it to the specific facts presented (counsel's declaration and the early stage of the case). It addresses the necessary factors (prejudice and delay) explicitly. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural motion of this nature.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTONIO BERRY, Case No.: 3:20-cv-0590-JAH-BLM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. WITHDRAW (ECF No. 26).
14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, by and 15 through THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM; OFFICER ERIC 16 ARELLANES, an individual and agent for 17 County of San Diego; OFFICER ALEJANDRO CASAS, an individual and 18 agent for County for San Diego; and 19 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 20 Defendants. 21 23 On March 31, 2022, counsel for Plaintiff Antonio Berry (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Berry”) 24 filed a motion to withdraw as attorney for Plaintiff, citing numerous difficulties. (ECF No. 25 26). Counsel has submitted a declaration in support of withdrawal, and also contends that 26 because the case is in the early stages of prosecution, a withdrawal would not cause 27 prejudice to the Plaintiff. 28 1 The decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw is within the discretion of the 2 court. Kassab v. San Diego Police Dep't, 2008 WL 251935, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 3 2008) (citations omitted). In making that determination, courts consider “(1) the reasons 4 || why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) 5 ||the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to 6 || which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” /d. (citation omitted). 7 After reviewing the record and the reasons for withdrawal noted by Carol Baidas, 8 || Esq., in her declaration in support of the request, the Court concludes that there is good 9 || cause to grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and that the withdrawal will not prejudice 10 Plaintiff or justice, nor lead to an unduly delayed resolution of the case because of the 11 |/current stage of the proceedings. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 |}DATED: — April 19, 2022 14 15 VU 16 JC A. HOUSTON 17 ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28