Jane Doe Nos. 60 through 121 v. Aylo Media S.A.R.L. et al

Filing 35

ORDER granting ECF No. 34 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Signed by District Judge William Q. Hayes on 09/25/2024. (stn) (anh).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

JANE DOE NOS. 60 through 121
inclusive, individuals,

24
25
26
27
28

ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
AYLO MEDIA S.A.R.L., (f/k/a
“MindGeek S.a.r.l.”) a foreign
entity; AYLO FREESITES, LTD.,
(f/k/a “MG Freesites, Ltd.” and
d/b/a “PornHub,” “YouPorn,”
“RedTube,” and “Tube8”) a foreign
entity; AYLO BILLING US
CORP., (f/k/a “MG Billing US
Corp.” and d/b/a “ProBiller”) a
Delaware corporation; 9219-1568
QUEBEC, INC., a foreign entity;
and AYLO HOLDINGS S.A.R.L.,

22
23

Case No.: 23-cv-1821-WQH-KSC

Defendants.
HAYES, Judge:
The matter before the Court is the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record (ECF
No. 34) filed by counsel for Defendants, Michael T. Zeller, Diane Cafferata, Robert
Becher, and Michelle Wang of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (collectively,
“Quinn Emanuel”).
1
23-cv-1821-WQH-KSC

1

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

2

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

3

court.” Urias v. Labcorp Peri-Approval & Commercialization Inc., No. 23-CV-1815 JLS

4

(MSB), 2023 WL 8845384, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2023) (citation omitted); see also

5

United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009); S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 83.3(f)(3)

6

(requiring that a notice of motion to withdraw as attorney of record be served on the adverse

7

party and on the moving attorney’s client, along with a declaration of service).

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

In ruling on a motion to withdraw as counsel, courts consider: (1) the reasons
why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other
litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice;
and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.
Leatt Corp. v. Innovative Safety Tech., LLC, No. 09-CV-1301-IEG POR, 2010 WL 444708,
at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2010) (citation omitted).
Quinn Emanuel asserts in the Motion that “Defendants consent to the withdrawal of
Quinn Emanuel, and will continue to be represented in this action by Mitchell Silberberg
& Knupp as counsel of record.” (ECF No. 34 at 2.) Quinn Emanuel also asserts that
granting the Motion “[will] not delay this proceeding” or “prejudice any party.” Id. The
Motion includes a declaration stating that copies of the Motion have been served on all
parties as required by Local Rule 83.3(f)(3). (ECF No. 34-1 at 2.) The Court finds that good
cause exists to grant withdrawal.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record
(ECF No. 34) is granted.
Dated: September 25, 2024

24
25
26
27
28
2
23-cv-1821-WQH-KSC