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)

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