Mosley v. Del Toro
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Todd W. Robinson (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion by plaintiff's counsel to be relieved as counsel, which was based on a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. The court denied the motion without prejudice, citing insufficient information and the potential for undue delay before a scheduled Early Neutral Evaluation conference.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel Denied Without Prejudice“The Court therefore DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Donald R. Holben & Associates, APC’s Motion.” | agree with court The court's decision is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies that the motion lacks sufficient factual support regarding the 'breakdown' and notes the practical prejudice to the case schedule (the upcoming ENE). Denying without prejudice allows the attorney to refile with proper documentation after the ENE, balancing the attorney's right to withdraw against the client's right to representation and the court's interest in efficiency. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the deficiencies in the motion (lack of elaboration) and the procedural context (upcoming ENE). It cites relevant authority for both the need for justification and the potential for delay. The result is defensible and follows standard practice for managing counsel withdrawal motions in federal court.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IVAN MOSLEY, an individual, Case No.: 21-CV-1129 TWR (JLB)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE DONALD R. HOLBEN & ASSOCIATES, APC’S MOTION 14 CARLOS DEL TORO, Secretary TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL of the Navy, Department of the Navy, 15 FOR PLAINTIFF IVAN MOSLEY a governmental entity; and DOES 1 16 through 25, inclusive, (ECF No. 27) 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Presently before the Court is Donald R. Holben & Associates, APC’s Motion to Be 21 Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Ivan Mosley (“Mot.,” ECF No. 27), which is noticed for 22 a hearing on November 17, 2022. The Motion is predicated—without further 23 elaboration—on a “breakdown in the attorney-client relationship[] and . . . . irreconcilable 24 differences.” (See ECF No. 27-1 (“Mem.”) at 2; see also id. at 3–4; ECF No. 27-2 (“Holben 25 Decl.”) ¶ 5.) Further, although no Early Neutral Evaluation conference (“ENE”) had been 26 scheduled when the Motion was filed on October 12, 2022, (see Mem. at 3; Holben Decl. 27 ¶ 4), on October 17, 2022, the Honorable Jill L. Burkhardt set an ENE for November 30, 28 2022. (See ECF No. 30.) 1 Not only does the Court have insufficient information about the reason withdrawal 2 ||is sought, see, e.g., Constr. Laborers Tr. Funds for S. Cal. Admin. v. W. Coast Structures, 3 || Inc., No. EDCV18490JGBSPX, 2019 WL 7905891, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2019), but 4 || allowing counsel to withdraw before the scheduled ENE might work an injustice or cause 5 || undue delay in the proceedings. (Cf Mem. at 34 (citing Manfredi & Levine v. Super. □□□ 6 ||66 Cal. App. 4th 1128, 1133-36 (1998)).) The Court therefore DENIES WITHOUT 7 || PREJUDICE Donald R. Holben & Associates, APC’s Motion. Counsel may renew its 8 || request—with proper support—following the ENE. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: October 20, 2022 — [59 14 bre Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28