Snediker v. Saul

Filing 15

ORDER granting 14 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Stuart Barasch terminated. Mr. Barasch SHALL immediately serve Plaintiff with a copy of this Order and thereafter file a proof of service to confirm the same. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez on 10/13/20. (jmo)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No.: 20cv1200-BAS-LL

DAVID SNEDIKER,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW

ANDREW SAUL,

15

[ECF No. 14]
Defendant.

16
17

Currently before the Court is a Motion to Withdraw Stuart Barasch as counsel of

18

record for Plaintiff pursuant to Local Rule 83.3(f). ECF No. 14. This is Mr. Barasch’s

19

second Motion to Withdraw. See ECF No. 12. The Court denied Mr. Barasch’s first Motion

20

on procedural grounds. ECF No. 13. In support of the instant Motion, Mr. Barasch states

21

Plaintiff has hired different local counsel—Martha W. Yancey. ECF No. 14 at 1.

22

“An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court, and the decision

23

to grant or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial

24

court.” Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 07CV594WQH (NLS), 2008 U.S. Dist.

25

LEXIS 10575, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation

26

omitted). “In ruling on a motion to withdraw as counsel, courts consider: (1) the reasons

27

why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3)

28

the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to
1
20cv1200-BAS-LL

1

which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Id. at *6-7 (citations omitted).

2

As an initial matter, the Court notes Mr. Barasch’s second Motion to Withdraw also

3

fails to meet the procedural requirements of Local Rule 83.3(f). Specifically, Mr. Barasch

4

did not file a declaration indicating that his client, David Snediker, was served with the

5

Motion to Withdraw as required. Instead, Mr. Barasch’s certificate of service states only

6

that he filed the Motion to Withdraw using the Court’s CM/ECF system—but his client’s

7

address is not on the docket for this case. See Jackson v. City of San Diego, No. 19CV767-

8

GPC(WVG), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181858, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2019) (denying

9

motion to withdraw for failure to file declaration indicating client was served with motion).

10

Notwithstanding this error, based on the moving papers and the procedural posture

11

of this case, the Court finds granting Mr. Barasch’s Motion will not prejudice Plaintiff,

12

harm the administration of justice, or delay the resolution of this case. Plaintiff will still be

13

represented by counsel—including different local counsel. In addition, no Party has

14

opposed the withdrawal. For the foregoing reasons, the Court, within its discretion,

15

GRANTS Mr. Barasch’s Motion. See Certain Underwriters at Lloyds Subscribing to

16

Policy No. 0801Q16413M13 v. Transp. Cont’l, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-02739-AJB-DHB, 2017

17

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83504, at *9-10 (S.D. Cal. May 31, 2017) (granting motion to withdraw

18

despite failure to file declaration of service).

19

The Court further ORDERS as follows:

20
21
22
23
24

1.

The Clerk of Court SHALL update the docket to reflect the withdrawal of Mr.

Stuart Barasch as counsel for Plaintiff;
2.

Mr. Barasch SHALL immediately serve Plaintiff with a copy of this Order

and thereafter file a proof of service to confirm the same.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27
28
2
20cv1200-BAS-LL

1

Dated: October 13, 2020

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
20cv1200-BAS-LL