Alla Kazovsky v. Metrocities Mortgage LLC et al
Filing
83
ORDER Denying Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record 82 by Judge Otis D Wright II. For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Prospers Motion. Prosper may renew its Motion once Plaintiff has obtained substitute counsel, or upon a proper showing that all of the issues discussed herein have been thoroughly addressed to the Courts satisfaction. (See Order for Details). (sch)
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
ALLA KAZOVSKY,
v.
Plaintiff,
METROCITIES MORTGAGE, LLC; et
al.,
Case No. 2:11-cv-06079-ODW (FMOx)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF
RECORD [82]
Defendants.
16
17
18
Before the Court is Prosper Law Group, LLP’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel
19
for Plaintiff Alla Kazovsky. (ECF No. 82.) Having carefully considered the papers
20
filed in support of and in opposition to the instant Motions, the Court deems the
21
matters appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal.
22
L.R. 7-15. Prosper’s Motion is DENIED.
23
Pursuant to Local Rule 83-2.9.2.1, “[a]n attorney may not withdraw as counsel
24
except by leave of court. An application for leave to withdraw must be made upon
25
written notice given reasonably in advance to the client and to all other parties who
26
have appeared in the action.” L.R. 83-2.9.2.1. The decision to grant or deny a motion
27
to withdraw as counsel for a party is within the Court’s discretion.
28
Huntington Learning Ctrs., Inc. v. Educ. Gateway, Inc., 2009 WL 2337863 at *1
See, e.g.,
1
(C.D. Cal., June 28, 2009). In determining whether to grant a motion to withdraw as
2
counsel, courts often weigh the following four factors: “(1) the reasons why
3
withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may result to other litigants; (3) the
4
harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice, and (4) the degree to
5
which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Id. (quoting Irwin v. Mascott,
6
2008 WL 410694 at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2004); Nedbank Int’l, Ltd, v. Xero Mobile,
7
Inc., 2008 WL 4814706 at *1 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 30, 2008)).
8
Upon consideration of these factors, the Court finds that withdrawal at this time
9
is unwarranted. Prosper’s Motion asserts that “Prosper Law makes this motion on the
10
basis that irreconcilable differences exist between the Firm and Plaintiff Alla
11
Kazovsky such that there is a break down in the attorney-client relationship. Prosper
12
Law believes that this Motion is consistent with California Rules of Professional
13
Conduct.” (Mot. 3 (citation omitted).) Prosper does not set forth which particular
14
California Rule of Professional Conduct it contends applies to this case. The Court
15
presumes that Prosper could only have intended Rule 3-700(C)(6), which provides
16
that counsel of record may not request permission to withdraw unless counsel
17
“believes in good faith, in a proceeding pending before a tribunal, that the tribunal will
18
find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal.” But Prosper’s Motion is
19
painfully vague, which obfuscates any good cause that may exist here.
20
Prosper further contends that no prejudice will result to Plaintiff by Prosper’s
21
withdrawal because “there are no pending Motions on the Courts [sic] calendar, and
22
the next scheduled Court appearance is the Scheduling Conference set for July 16,
23
2012.” First, Prosper scheduled the hearing on its Motion to Withdraw just two weeks
24
before the Scheduling conference—the same date that Plaintiff’s Joint Rule 26(f)
25
Report is due. (ECF No. 79, at 2.) Were the Court to grant Prosper’s Motion,
26
Plaintiff potentially would be left to fend for herself at the scheduling conference,
27
suddenly finding herself without counsel during an important stage of the litigation.
28
2
1
Second, in response to the Court’s March 2, 2012 Order to Show Cause
2
Regarding Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution against Defendant U.S. Bancorp,
3
Prosper associate Sasha M. Moreno represented to the Court on March 9, 2012, that
4
“Plaintiff and Defendant U.S. Bancorp are currently in the process of exchanging
5
information in an effort to resolve U.S. Bancorp’s belief that they have been
6
incorrectly named in this action. [¶] If resolved, Plaintiff intends to voluntarily
7
dismiss U.S. Bancorp in the near future.” (Moreno Decl., ECF No. 70, ¶¶ 10, 11.) To
8
date, no further action has been taken with respect to U.S. Bancorp. The Court
9
questions whether this fact was intentionally omitted from Prosper’s Motion to
10
Withdraw. Regardless, the Court finds that Prosper has made an inadequate showing
11
that its withdraw at this stage would not prejudice Plaintiff in this action or delay
12
resolution of this proceeding.
13
Finally, Prosper notes that it “has complied with all of the requirements under
14
Local Rule 83-2.9.2.1” (id.), “including giving due notice to Ms. Kazovsky, and
15
allowing time for employment of other counsel.” (Bergman Decl. ¶ 3.) Yet Prosper
16
does not explain when or how it provided Plaintiff this “due notice,” nor what sort of
17
time frame it provided her for seeking employment of new counsel. As a result, the
18
Court is left wondering what, if anything, Plaintiff actually knows or understands
19
regarding Prosper’s Motion.
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
3
1
For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Prosper’s Motion. Prosper
2
may renew its Motion once Plaintiff has obtained substitute counsel, or upon a proper
3
showing that all of the issues discussed herein have been thoroughly addressed to the
4
Court’s satisfaction.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
June 4, 2012
9
10
11
____________________________________
HON. OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?