1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PATRICIA BOBBS, on behalf of herself Case No.: 21-CV-1323 TWR (BGS) and all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER GRANTING DEFENSE Plaintiff, 13 COUNSEL’S MOTION TO v. WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY 14 NATIONAL CLAIMS ADJUSTERS, 15 (ECF No. 30) INC., 16 Defendant. 17 18 Presently before the Court is Defense Counsel’s unopposed Motion to Withdraw as 19 Attorney for Defendant National Claim Adjusters, Inc. (ECF No. 30, “Mot.”) The Court 20 VACATES the hearing set for November 10, 2022, and takes the matter under submission 21 without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). Having carefully considered 22 Defense Counsel’s arguments and the law, the Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS 23 Defendant to obtain new counsel within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. 24 BACKGROUND 25 The law firm of Call & Jensen currently represents Defendant National Claim 26 Adjusters, Inc. (Mot. at 3.) But according to Defense Counsel, Defendant has ceased 27 communications with the firm despite repeated attempts to engage in meaningful 28 conversations that would move the litigation forward. (Id. at 4–5; ECF No. 30-1 at ¶¶ 5– 1 11, “Egley Decl.”) Defense Counsel indicates that Defendant did not attend a scheduled 2 mediation in July 2022, nor did Defendant provide its Counsel with pertinent information 3 for the mediation. (Mot. at 4; Egley Decl. ¶¶ 5–7.) Defendant has also ceased payments 4 to Defense Counsel—Counsel has not been paid since December 2021. (Mot. at 4.) At 5 the end of August 2022, Defense Counsel emailed Defendant informing it that the firm 6 would need to withdraw from representation if it failed to communicate with its attorneys, 7 provide requested information, and pay its bills. (Id.; Egley Decl. ¶¶ 9–10.) In the same 8 email, Defense Counsel also informed Defendant that companies may only appear in 9 federal court through counsel. (Egley Decl. ¶ 9.) As of November 4, 2022, Defendant had 10 not responded to any of Defense Counsel’s attempted communications since August 2022. 11 (ECF No. 33 at ¶ 6, “Supp. Egley Decl.”) Defense Counsel now seeks to withdraw as 12 Defendant’s counsel of record, stating it has taken reasonable steps to try to avoid having 13 to be relieved as counsel, but good cause exists to allow the firm to withdraw given the 14 breakdown in the relationship between Defendant and Defense Counsel. (Mot. at 5; Egley 15 Decl. ¶ 13.) Defense Counsel also requests that the Court continue all other hearings and 16 trial dates by three months. (Mot. at 2.) Plaintiff has indicated to Defense Counsel that 17 she does not oppose this motion (Mot. at 3; Supp. Egley Decl. ¶ 5) and Defendant has not 18 opposed the Motion even though Defense Counsel served Defendant with the Motion (see 19 generally ECF No. 30-2). 20 LEGAL STANDARD 21 “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” Beard v. 22 Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., 2009 WL 410694, at * 2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008). Under the 23 Civil Local Rules, a “motion to withdraw as attorney of record must be served on the 24 adverse party and on the moving attorney’s client” and the moving attorney must file a 25 declaration of service. L.R. 83.3(f)(3). Trial courts have discretion whether to grant or 26 deny a motion to withdraw as counsel of record in a civil case, and in so deciding, “courts 27 consider: (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause 28 to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and 1 (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Beard, 2009 WL 2 410694, at * 2. Failure to pay attorney’s fees can be a valid ground for withdraw. Inigo v. 3 Express Movers, Inc., 2020 WL 8838166, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 24, 2020). And a 4 “breakdown in communication between counsel and the represented party constitutes good 5 cause to withdraw as counsel.” Three Sons, Inc. v. Felix Express Inc., 2022 WL 2286760, 6 at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2022). 7 ANALYSIS 8 Here, Defense Counsel has shown good cause for withdrawal because all the 9 relevant considerations weigh in its favor. First, Defendant has not paid its Counsel since 10 December 2021 and has refused to communicate with its Counsel for at least two months, 11 making representation nearly impossible. (Egley Decl. ¶¶ 5–13; Supp. Egley Decl. ¶ 6). 12 Second, there is no danger of prejudice since Defendant has been on notice since August 13 2022 that its Counsel may seek to withdraw, and Plaintiff has indicated she does not oppose 14 the Motion (Mot. at 3–4; Supp. Egley Decl. ¶ 5). See Inigo, 2020 WL 8838166, at *2. 15 Defense Counsel also complied with the requirements of Civil Local Rule 83.3(f)(3) by 16 serving a copy of the Motion on Defendant and filing a declaration to that effect. (See 17 generally ECF No. 30-2). Third, there is no evidence that granting this Motion would harm 18 the administration of justice. Finally, granting this Motion will not significantly delay the 19 resolution of this case. In fact, granting this Motion will encourage the Defendant to 20 reengage in this litigation and assist in moving the case toward resolution. 21 The Court recognizes that granting Defense Counsel’s withdraw motion will leave 22 Defendant, a legal entity, without counsel in contravention of Civil Local Rule 83.3(j). 23 That rule, however, is not offended if the Court orders the unrepresented Defendant to find 24 substitute counsel and gives adequate time to do so. See Inigo, 2020 WL 8838166, at *2; 25 see also Light Salt Investments, LP v. Fisher, 2013 WL 12121255. at *1–2 (S.D. Cal. Nov 26 15, 2013) (granting motion to withdraw as counsel, and setting deadline to secure substitute 27 counsel, where counsel cited plaintiff limited partnership’s refusal to participate in 28 litigation and inability to pay fees as reasons for withdrawal). The Court therefore 1 |} GRANTS Defense Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as Attorney and DIRECTS Defendant 2 || to find substitute representation within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Call & Jensen’s Motion to Withdraw 5 |}as Attorney. The Clerk of Court SHALL immediately update the docket to reflect the 6 || withdraw of Call & Jensen and its attorneys. Defense Counsel SHALL immediately serve 7 Defendant with a copy of this Order and thereafter file a proof of service to confirm the 8 ||same. Defendant has thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to obtain new counsel 9 ||and have new counsel file a notice of appearance. The settlement conference currently 10 ||scheduled for December 21, 2022, before Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal is 11 continued until February 6, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. via Zoom Video Conference. Counsel shall 12 || lodge confidential settlement briefs directly with Judge Skomal’s chambers by January 23, 13 2023. The Final Pretrial Conference currently scheduled for February 1, 2023, before 14 Judge Todd W. Robinson is continued to March 24, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: November 8, 2022 —_—— 17 | od (2 ® re 18 Honorable Todd W. Robinson 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28