Shannon v. Windsor Equity Group, Inc.

Filing 62

NOTICE AND ORDER Providing Tentative Rulings Re: Defense Counsels' Ex Parte 53 57 Motions to Withdrawal as Counsel for Defendant Windsor Equity Group, Inc. June Coleman of Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard may appear telephonically at Mo nday's hearing. Counsel shall call in to the courtroom prior to the 9:00 AM hearing. The Court advises the parties that these rulings are tentative. The Court will entertain additional argument at the hearing on Monday, March 30, 2015. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 3/26/2015.(rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SHAUN SHANNON,

12
13

CASE NO. 12cv1124-MMA (JMA)
Plaintiff,

v.

14
15
16
17
18

NOTICE AND ORDER
PROVIDING TENTATIVE
RULINGS RE: DEFENSE
COUNSELS’ EX PARTE MOTIONS
TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
FOR DEFENDANT WINDSOR
EQUITY GROUP, INC.

WINDSOR EQUITY GROUP, INC.,

[Doc. Nos. 53, 57]
Defendant.
Currently set for hearing before the Court on Monday, March 30, 2015 at

19 9:00 a.m. are Ellis Law Group, LLP (“ELG”) and Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann
20 & Girard’s (“KMTG”) separate ex parte motions to withdraw as counsel for
21 Defendant Windsor Equity Group, Inc. Having considered the parties’ submissions,
22 and in anticipation of Monday’s hearing, the Court issues the following tentative
23 rulings:
“An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” Darby
24
25 v. City of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992); see also S.D. Cal. Civ.
26 R. 83.3(g). The decision to grant or deny a motion for withdrawal is within the
27 court’s sound discretion, and courts consider the following factors: “(1) the reasons
28 why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants;
-1-

12cv1124-MMA (JMA)

1 (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the
2 degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Garrett v. Ruiz,
3 No. 11cv2540, 2013 WL 163420, *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013).
4

The Court tentatively finds that good cause exists for Ellis Law Group, LLP

5 and Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard to withdraw as counsel for
6 Defendant. It appears that Defendant has consented to the withdrawal of both law
7 firms. See Steinheimer Decl. ¶ 3; Coleman Supp. Decl. ¶ 3. Although not
8 dispositive, a client’s consent may provide the basis for permissive withdrawal of
9 counsel. See Cal. Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(5) (permitting a member
10 to request permission to withdraw because “[t]he client knowingly and freely assents
11 to termination of the employment”). Additionally, it appears that KMTG has not
12 been involved in litigating this case since June 2012, almost 3 years ago, and ELG
13 has represented to this Court that further representation of Defendant is untenable
14 based on its professional obligations. Although counsels’ withdrawal may result in
15 delay of trial, any prejudice to Plaintiff resulting from this minor delay can be
16 mitigated by requiring Defendant to retain new counsel within 21 days or be subject
17 to sanctions, including entry of default judgment. Once new counsel has entered an
18 appearance, the Court will reset the trial date. Finally, the risk of harm to the
19 administration of justice weighs in favor of permitting withdrawal.
20

Additionally, June Coleman of Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard may

21 appear telephonically at Monday’s hearing. Counsel shall call in to the
22 undersigned’s courtroom prior to the 9:00 a.m. hearing.
23

The Court advises the parties that these rulings are tentative. The Court will

24 entertain additional argument at the hearing on Monday, March 30, 2015.
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27 DATED: March 26, 2015
28

Hon. Michael M. Anello
United States District Judge
-2-

12cv1124-MMA (JMA)