Chau v. Nationwide Insurance Company of America et al

Filing 48

ORDER Granting 30 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Elliott N Kanter terminated as counsel for Plaintiff. Attorneys' are ordered to provide a copy of this order to Plaintiff, who shall provide the Court with an address on or before August 18, 2017. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 8/8/2017. (jao)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PAUL CHAU,

Case No.: 16-CV-0927 W (NLS)
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEYS’
MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

NATIONWIDE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA,

15
16

Defendants.

17
18

Attorney Elliott N. Kanter and the Law Office of Elliott N. Kanter (collectively

19

“Attorneys”) have filed a motion to withdraw as attorney of record for Plaintiff Paul

20

Chau. The motion is unopposed.

21

“The grant or denial of an attorney’s motion to withdraw in a civil case is a matter

22

addressed to the discretion of the trial court . . . .” Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate,

23

Inc., 694 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1982). Factors considered in evaluating the motion

24

are “1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; 2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to

25

other litigants; 3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and

26

4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” CE Resource,

27

Inc. v. Magellan Group, LLC, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D.Cal. 2009) (citing

28

Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, 2009 WL 89141, at *1 (E.D.Cal. 2009)).
1
16-CV-0927 W (NLS)

1

Attorneys contend that irreconcilable differences have arisen during this case,

2

which has made it “virtually impossible to properly represent Mr. Chau.” (Mot. [Doc.

3

30] 2:7–10.) Additionally, Attorneys contend “Mr. Chau has made promises as to

4

compensation for his attorney costs and fees, which have not been fulfilled.” (Id. 2:11–

5

12.) Mr. Chau’s failure to pay the attorneys’ fees is a sufficient ground to justify

6

withdrawal. See, CA ST RPC Rule 3-700(B)(f).

7

Additionally, there is nothing in the record suggesting that Attorneys’ withdrawal

8

will prejudice the litigants in this matter, will harm the administration of justice or unduly

9

delay the resolution of this case. Attorneys have notified and served a copy of this

10

motion on Mr. Chau, who was aware of the deadline for filing his opposition. (Kanter

11

Decl. [Doc. 46] ¶¶ 2–6.) The motion was also served on the Defendant. (Cert. of Service

12

[Doc. 30-2].) To date, no opposition to the motion has been filed.

13

For all these reasons, the Court GRANTS Attorney Elliott N. Kanter and the Law

14

Office of Elliott N. Kanter’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record for Plaintiff Paul

15

Chau [Doc. 30]. Attorneys’ are ORDERED to provide a copy of this order to Plaintiff,

16

who shall provide the Court with an address on or before August 18, 2017.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 8, 2017

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
16-CV-0927 W (NLS)