Nuno et al v. BMW of North America, LLC et al

Filing 18

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice 16 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. The motion to withdraw is denied without prejudice. Counsel may file a new motion to withdraw that complies with S.D. Cal. Local Rule 83.3 and provides some basis to support the motion. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 5/18/2018. (rmc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ELIZABETH NUNO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 17-cv-01574-BAS-BLM

v.

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
[ECF No. 16]

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
Defendant.

16
17

Presently before the Court is a request filed by Ian Schuler to withdraw as

18

counsel for Defendant BMW of North America, LLC. (ECF No. 16.) Counsel has

19

not filed a proper motion to withdraw as an attorney under the Local Rules. Local

20

Rule 83.3(f) requires that “[a] notice of motion to withdraw as attorney of record

21

must be served on the adverse party and on the moving attorney’s client.” Civ. L.R.

22

83.3(f)(3)(a). The Rule also requires that a declaration pertaining to the service

23

required under subsection (a) be filed. Civ. L.R. 83.3(f)(3)(b). Failure to either

24

complete the required service or file the required declaration “will result in the denial

25

of the motion.” Id. Here, counsel has failed to file a declaration of service of the

26

motion on Plaintiffs and his client. The motion is subject to denial on this basis.

27

Moreover, the Court observes that a motion to withdraw as an attorney is typically

28

supported by more than a standardized form requesting withdrawal. Courts generally
–1–

17cv1574

1

consider certain factors when ruling on a motion to withdraw, including: (1) the

2

reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other

3

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

4

(4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case. Curtis v.

5

Illumination Arts, Inc., No. C12-0991JLR, 2014 WL 556010, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Feb.

6

12, 2014); Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. C09-01643 SBA, 2010 WL

7

3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010). Counsel has not shed light on any of these

8

factors.

9

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to withdraw is DENIED WITHOUT

10

PREJUDICE. (ECF No. 16.) Counsel may file a new motion to withdraw that

11

complies with S.D. Cal. Local Rule 83.3 and provides some basis to support the

12

motion.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

DATED: May 18, 2018

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–2–

17cv1574