1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTONIO BERRY, Case No.: 3:20-cv-0590-JAH-BLM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. WITHDRAW (ECF No. 26). 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, by and 15 through THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM; OFFICER ERIC 16 ARELLANES, an individual and agent for 17 County of San Diego; OFFICER ALEJANDRO CASAS, an individual and 18 agent for County for San Diego; and 19 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 On March 31, 2022, counsel for Plaintiff Antonio Berry (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Berry”) 24 filed a motion to withdraw as attorney for Plaintiff, citing numerous difficulties. (ECF No. 25 26). Counsel has submitted a declaration in support of withdrawal, and also contends that 26 because the case is in the early stages of prosecution, a withdrawal would not cause 27 prejudice to the Plaintiff. 28 1 The decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw is within the discretion of the 2 court. Kassab v. San Diego Police Dep't, 2008 WL 251935, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 3 2008) (citations omitted). In making that determination, courts consider “(1) the reasons 4 || why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) 5 ||the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to 6 || which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” /d. (citation omitted). 7 After reviewing the record and the reasons for withdrawal noted by Carol Baidas, 8 || Esq., in her declaration in support of the request, the Court concludes that there is good 9 || cause to grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and that the withdrawal will not prejudice 10 Plaintiff or justice, nor lead to an unduly delayed resolution of the case because of the 11 |/current stage of the proceedings. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 |}DATED: — April 19, 2022 14 15 VU 16 JC A. HOUSTON 17 ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28