Allegro Consultants, Inc. v. Wellington Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 119

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON 118 MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF; AND GRANTING 118 MOTION. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/10/2017.(blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 ALLEGRO CONSULTANTS, INC., 9 Plaintiff, 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 v. WELLINGTON TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant. Case No. 13-cv-02204-BLF ORDER VACATING HEARING ON MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF; AND GRANTING MOTION [Re: ECF 118] 13 14 Counsel for Plaintiff Allegro Consultants, Inc., Nick Heimlich, has filed a motion for 15 withdrawal as counsel. Motion, ECF 118. The motion was filed on July 21, 2017 and noticed for 16 hearing on December 7, 2017. Id. No opposition has been filed, and the deadline for opposition 17 has expired. See Civ. L.R. 7-3(a) (“opposition must be filed and served not more than 14 days 18 after the motion was filed”). The Court concludes that the motion to withdraw is appropriate for 19 decision without oral argument and thus VACATES the hearing set for December 7, 2017. See 20 Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 21 The decision to permit counsel to withdraw is within the discretion of the district court. See 22 United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating abuse of discretion standard). 23 “Courts consider several factors when deciding a motion for withdrawal, including: (1) the 24 reasons counsel seeks to withdraw; (2) the possible prejudice that withdrawal may cause to other 25 litigants; (3) the harm that withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the 26 extent to which withdrawal will delay resolution of the case.” Brown v. City of Antioch, No. 16- 27 CV-05102-LB, 2017 WL 2438989, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2017) (internal quotation marks and 28 citation omitted). 1 With respect to the first factor, the reasons for the request to withdraw, counsel submits a 2 declaration stating that he seeks to withdraw at the direction of his client, Plaintiff Allegro 3 Consultants, Inc. Heimlich Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, ECF 118-2. Because judgment was entered in this case 4 more than a year ago, the second, third, and fourth factors, relating to potential prejudice and 5 delay, do not appear to be implicated. 6 Because counsel seeks withdrawal at the request of his client, and absent objection by any 7 other litigant or any indication on the record that withdrawal would cause prejudice or delay, Mr. 8 Heimlich’s motion for withdrawal as counsel of record for Plaintiff is GRANTED. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Dated: August 10, 2017 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?