Akpan v. Target Corporation ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SWAD AKPAN, Case No.: 3:19-cv-00398 W (MDD) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEYS’ 12 v. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF SWAD 13 TARGET CORPORATION, et al., AKPAN [DOC. 24] 14 Defendants. 15 16 Pending before the Court is a motion to withdraw as attorney of record for Plaintiff 17 Swad Akpan, filed by Michael Weitz of Blanchard, Krasner & French on November 21, 18 2019. [Doc. 24.] All parties have been served, and although Counsel for Target 19 Corporation does not oppose Counsel for Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw, Counsel for 20 Defendant Target Corporation has expressed reservations regarding Plaintiff’s capacity to 21 find adequate representation. [Doc. 27.] 22 “The decision to grant or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the 23 discretion of the trial court.” Irwin v. Mascott, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28264 (N.D. Cal. 24 Dec. 1, 2004) (citing Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, Inc., 694 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th 25 Cir. 1982). Factors considered in evaluating the application include: “1) the reasons why 26 withdrawal is sought; 2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; 3) the 27 harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and 4) the degree to which 28 1 || withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” CE Resource, Inc. v Magellan Group, 2 || LLC, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2009) (citing Canandaigua Wine □□□□ 3 v. Moldauer, 2009 WL 89141, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009)). 4 Attorneys contend they should be allowed to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff 5 || Akpan because there is good cause under the California Rules of Professional Conduct. 6 ||[Doc. 24-3.] Attorneys have notified and served a copy of this motion on the Plaintiff 7 || and on the other parties. (Weitz Decl. [Doc. 24-1] 4 6, 7.) 8 Given the procedural posture of this case, withdrawal will not prejudice the 9 || litigants in this matter, harm the administration of justice, or delay resolution of the case. 10 || Defendant Target Corporation’s concerns regarding Plaintiff’s competency may be 11 ||resolved at the Mandatory Settlement Conference currently scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on 12 || February 18, 2020. 13 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion to withdraw as counsel 14 || of record in this action for Plaintiff Akpan. [Doc. 24]. The Court FURTHER ORDERS 15 || Blanchard, Krasner & French to provide a copy of this order to Plaintiff Akpan upon its 16 issuance. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: January 7, 2020 \ 20 pe lnLor 21 Hn. 7 omas J. Whelan 09 Unted States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28