Board of Trustees of the Construction Industry and Laborers Health and Welfare Trust v. Sentinel Maintenance of Las Vegas, LLC ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 5 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND Case No. 2:22-cv-00565-JCM-NJK 6 LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST, et al., Order 7 Plaintiff(s), [Docket No. 78] 8 v. 9 SENTINEL MAINTENANCE OF LAS 10 VEGAS, LLC, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is a motion to withdraw as counsel for Defendants Sentinel 13 Maintenance and SMI. Docket No. 78. 14 Whether to allow withdrawal of counsel is an issue entrusted to the broad discretion of the 15 Court. Whiting v. Lacara, 187 F.3d 317, 320 (2d Cir. 1999); see also LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 16 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998). In exercising that discretion, courts may consider a number of 17 factors, including: “(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may 18 cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and 19 (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Williams v. Cnty. of 20 Fresno, 562 F. Supp. 3d 1032, 1035 (E.D. Cal. 2021). With respect to the first consideration, 21 courts generally view a failure to pay legal fees as a weak justification for withdrawal. See, e.g., 22 Rophaiel v. Alken Murray Corp., 1996 WL 306457, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 1996). 23 Based on the vague assertions made in the motion papers, it appears that withdrawal is 24 premised on a failure to pay legal fees. See Docket No. 78 at 3. It is not clear that such a 25 circumstance warrants allowing withdrawal at this juncture. Summary judgment has already been 26 granted, Docket No. 69, motions related to entry of judgment appear to be unopposed, Docket Nos. 27 70, 71, and the only loose end is a motion for attorney’s fees, Docket No. 72. The deadline to 28 1} respond to the motion for attorney’s fees is currently set for May 8, 2024. Docket No. 77. As these circumstances demonstrate, there is not much lawyering work left in the case. 3 Moreover, withdrawal is sought for two corporate defendants, which cannot proceed without an attorney. United States v. High Country Broad. Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993). 5] Hence, allowing withdrawal will likely result in weeks or months of delay while these defendants 6] attempt to retain new counsel. If new counsel cannot be retained, then the withdrawal would lead 7| to default judgment proceedings. See id. It is not clear that this delay (or potential creation of 8|| additional proceedings) is justified given the procedural posture and the limited work that appears 9] to be left in the case. 10 Given the circumstances, the Court has not been persuaded that withdrawal is appropriate 11] and the motion to withdraw is DENIED without prejudice. The Court is mindful that the motion 12] is purposefully vague. If counsel believe a sufficient showing can be made to warrant withdrawal, 13] a renewed motion may be filed.! 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: April 26, 2024 16 7 x — Nancy J. K 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26) ———______ ' Counsel reference the potential for sharing information with the Court in secret. Docket No. 78 at 3. If counsel wish to pursue that option, they must comply with the governing procedures and meet the applicable standards. See, e.g., Local Rule JA 10-4 (in camera); Local Rule IA 10-5 28]| (sealing).