Four in One Company, Inc. v. SK Foods, L.P. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Four in One Company, et al., No. 2:08-cv-03017-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. 14 SK Foods, L.P. et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Attorney Malcolm Segal moves to withdraw as counsel for defendant Scott Salyer, which 18 | would leave Mr. Salyer without counsel. ECF No. 298. No party filed an opposition or statement 19 | of non-opposition. As explained in this order, the motion is granted. 20 If withdrawal would leave a client in propria persona, Local Rule 182(d) requires the 21 | withdrawing party to seek leave of court, file a formal motion and provide notice of the 22 | withdrawal to the client and all other parties who have appeared. The attorney must also provide 23 | an affidavit stating the current or last known address or addresses of the client and the efforts 24 | made to notify the client of the motion to withdraw. Jd. Withdrawal must also comply with the 25 | Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California. 7d. Rule 1.16 requires an attorney 26 | to take “reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, such 27 | as giving the client sufficient notice to permit the client to retain other counsel, and complying 28 | with paragraph (e),” which in turn requires counsel to return the client’s materials and property 1 and any expenses or fees paid in advance that the lawyer has not earned or incurred. The Rules 2 also permit withdrawal if, as relevant here, “the client knowingly and freely assents to termination 3 of the representation.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(b)(6). 4 Whether to grant a motion to withdraw is within the court’s discretion. United States v. 5 Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009). Courts consider several factors when evaluating a 6 motion to withdraw, including the reasons for withdrawal, possible prejudice to the client and 7 other litigants, harm to the administration of justice, and possible delay. Deal v. Countrywide 8 Home Loans, No. 09-01643, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010) (citation 9 omitted). 10 Mr. Segal has complied with the rules described above. He has requested leave to 11 withdraw in a formal motion, has given notice to all parties, and has submitted an affidavit with 12 Mr. Salyer’s current address. See Mot., ECF No. 298; id. Ex. 1, ECF No. 298-1. Mr. Salyer has 13 also submitted a declaration confirming that he requested that Mr. Segal withdraw. See id. Ex. 2, 14 ECF No. 298-2. The relevant factors described above also weigh in favor of the motion. No 15 party opposes the motion, Mr. Salyer has confirmed he would like to proceed without counsel, 16 and the court perceives no likely delays or harms to the administration of justice if the motion is 17 granted. 18 The motion is thus granted. Mr. Segal and his firm, Segal & Associates, are terminated 19 as counsel in this proceeding. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 DATED: November 5, 2020.