Urias v. Labcorp Peri-approval and Commercialization Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved to withdraw the appearance of attorney Kimberly Carter, who had left their law firm, and the Court granted the motion. The Court ordered the Clerk to update the docket and remove Carter from the CM/ECF service list.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Counsel is granted.“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the local standard for withdrawal of counsel, noting that the attorney was no longer with the firm and that the firm would continue to represent the defendants, thus causing no prejudice or delay. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate district court authorities for the standard of review and the factors to be considered. The reasoning is sufficient for a routine administrative motion where the firm remains as counsel of record.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREA URIAS, individually, and on Case No.: 23-CV-1815 JLS (MSB) behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ Plaintiff, 13 MOTION TO WITHDRAW v. APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 14 LABCORP PERI-APPROVAL AND 15 (ECF No. 17) COMMERCIALIZATION INC., an 16 unknown entity; COVANCE MARKET ACCESS SERVICES, INC., a 17 corporation; COVANCE INC., a 18 corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 Presently before the Court is the Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Counsel 22 (“Mot.,” ECF No. 17) brought by Defendants Labcorp Peri-Approval and 23 Commercialization, Inc. and Convenance Market Access Services, Inc. (collectively, 24 “Defendants”). Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Motion. See generally Docket. 25 “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court, and the decision 26 to grant or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial 27 court.” Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 07CV594WQH (NLS), 2008 WL 410694, 28 at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008) (alterations, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted). 1 ||“In ruling on a motion to withdraw as counsel, courts consider: (1) the reasons why 2 || withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the 3 ||harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which 4 || withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Leatt Corp. v. Innovative Safety Tech., 5 || LLC, No. 09-CV-1301-IEG (POR), 2010 WL 444708, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2010) (citing 6 || Beard, 2008 WL 410694, at *2). 7 Here, good cause exists to grant Defendants’ Motion. Defendants seek to withdraw 8 ||Kimberly Carter (“Carter”) as counsel and remove her from the CM/ECF service list 9 || because Carter is no longer with the firm Kelley Drye & Warren LLP (the “Firm’”). Mot. 10 1. Defendants argue, and the Court agrees, that no prejudice or delay is likely to result 11 || from this withdrawal, as the Firm has been and will continue to represent Defendants. See 12 13 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion. The Clerk of the Court 14 ||SHALL update the docket to reflect the withdrawal of Kimberly Carter as counsel for 15 || Defendants and SHALL remove her from the CM/ECF service list for this matter. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ||Dated: December 20, 2023 tt 18 pen Janis L. Sammartino 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28