Hale v. Manna Pro Products, LLC ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ASHLEY HALE, No. 2:18-cv-00209-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MANNA PRO PRODUCTS, LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Defendant Manna Pro Products, LLC is currently represented by four lead 19 attorneys from three different law firms. On October 24, 2019, one of defendant’s lead attorneys, 20 Jennifer E. Hoekel, moved to withdraw as counsel for defendant, explaining she has transitioned 21 to a new law firm effective October 7, 2019. Neither defendant nor plaintiff has opposed the 22 motion. If Ms. Hoekel is permitted to withdraw as counsel, defendant will not be left in propria 23 persona, but will continue to be represented by Armstrong Teasdale LLP and TroyGould PC. 24 Whether to grant a motion to withdraw is within the court’s discretion. Liang v. 25 Cal-Bay Int’l, Inc., No. 06CV1082-WMC, 2007 WL 3144099, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2007) 26 (citing LeGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998)). Courts consider several factors 27 when evaluating a motion to withdraw, including the reasons for withdrawal, possible prejudice 28 to the client and other litigants, harm to the administration of justice and possible delay. Deal v. 1 Countrywide Home Loans, No. 09-01643, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010) 2 (citation omitted). 3 Here, the court finds good cause exists for Ms. Hoekel to withdraw, and her 4 withdrawal is not likely to prejudice any party or delay this litigation. Accordingly, the motion to 5 withdraw is GRANTED. 6 This order resolves ECF No. 44. The Clerk is directed to amend the docket to 7 reflect this change. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 DATED: December 5, 2019. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28