Reynolds v. McLaren Group, LLC et al
Filing
21
ORDER Granting 17 Attorney's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff. Attorney David Neal Barry terminated. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 9/24/2024. (exs)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
Case No.: 23-cv-01928-W-MMP
SEAN REYNOLDS,
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
MCLAREN GROUP, LLC; MCLAREN
AUTOMOTIVE, INC.; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive.
15
16
ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY’S
MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
[DOC. 17]
Defendants.
17
18
19
Pending before the Court is David N. Barry’s (“Attorney”) motion to withdraw as
20
attorney of record for plaintiff Sean Reynolds (“Plaintiff”). ([Doc. 17], “Motion to
21
Withdraw”.) The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral
22
argument. See CivLR 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS
23
the Motion to Withdraw.
24
On September 13, 2023, Attorney field this lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiff in San
25
Diego County Superior Court. ([Doc. 1-2], “Complaint”.) The Complaint asserted seven
26
causes of action relating to Plaintiff’s purchase of an allegedly defective McLaren
27
vehicle. (Id.) On October 9, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed defendant McLaren Group, LLC
28
with prejudice, apparently after realizing it is a real estate business operated by an
1
23-cv-01928-W-MMP
1
individual named Kelly McLaren, who has no relation to McLaren vehicles. ([Doc. 1], at
2
¶ 14 “Notice of Removal”.)
3
Remaining defendant McLaren Automotive, Inc. (“Defendant”) then removed the
4
case to federal court on October 20, 2023. (Id.) Thereinafter, the Court denied Plaintiff’s
5
motion to remand and granted in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (See [Doc. 13],
6
“Motion to Dismiss”.) Shortly thereafter, Attorney attempted to withdraw as the attorney
7
of record for Plaintiff [Doc. 14] but this initial request was stricken by the Court because
8
it, among other things, did not appear that Attorney had served the document on his
9
client. (See [Doc. 15].) Now, Attorney again attempts to withdraw as attorney of record
10
for Plaintiff, citing a “breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.” ([Doc. 17-1], at 3.)
11
An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court. Darby v. City
12
of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D.Cal.1992); CivLR 83.3(f)(3). “The grant or
13
denial of an attorney’s motion to withdraw in a civil case is a matter addressed to the
14
discretion of the trial court . . . .” Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, Inc., 694 F.2d
15
1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1982). Factors considered in evaluating a motion to withdraw are
16
“1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; 2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other
17
litigants; 3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and 4) the
18
degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” CE Resource, Inc. v.
19
Magellan Group, LLC, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Canandaigua
20
Wine Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, 2009 WL 89141, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2009)).
21
Withdrawal of counsel is governed by the standards of professional conduct
22
required of members of the State Bar of California. See Nehad v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d
23
962, 970 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying California Rules of Professional Conduct to attorney
24
withdrawal). Under Rule 1.16(d), an attorney “shall not terminate the representation until
25
the lawyer has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the
26
rights of the client, such as giving the client sufficient notice to permit the client to retain
27
28
2
23-cv-01928-W-MMP
1
other counsel . . . .”1 (punctuation omitted). Furthermore, CivLR 83.3(f)(3) states an
2
attorney’s motion to withdraw “must be served” “on the moving attorney’s client” and
3
the motion must be accompanied by a “declaration pertaining to such service.”
4
Here, Attorney’s Motion to Withdraw is accompanied by a declaration and
5
certificate of service representing that the Motion to Withdraw was timely served—by
6
both mail and electronic service—on Plaintiff Sean Reynolds and counsel for Defendant.
7
([Doc. 17-2], at 3–6.) The time for opposition (September 2, 2024) passed and neither
8
Plaintiff Sean Reynolds nor Defendant opposed, thereby conceding that neither party
9
believes they would be prejudiced by the withdrawal.
10
However, on September 17, 2024—one day after the Motion to Withdraw’s
11
hearing date and 15 days after any opposition was due—Plaintiff Sean Reynolds (who is
12
an attorney) filed an opposition to the Motion to Withdraw. ([Doc. 20], “Opposition”.)
13
Plaintiff’s excuse for his Opposition being late was that he “ha[s] never filed in the
14
Southern District despite being admitted in 2007 . . . [and] had to upgrade and link my
15
Pacer account which has required dozens of phone calls and emails . . . .” (Id. at ¶ 3.)
16
While this may be true and could possibly explain a short delay, it does not explain
17
Plaintiff’s Opposition being 15 days late. See CivLR 7.1.e.2 (“[E]ach party opposing a
18
motion . . . must file that opposition . . . not later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to
19
the noticed hearing.”). Indeed, Plaintiff had over a month between service of the Motion
20
to Withdraw and when his Opposition was due—more than enough time to sort out any
21
technical difficulties. Plaintiff is an attorney admitted to practice in this district and is
22
expected to follow its deadlines just like any other attorney. As such, the Court declines
23
to exercise its discretion to permit Plaintiff’s late-filed Opposition. See FED. R. CIV. P.
24
6(b)(1) (emphasis added) (“[T]he court may, for good cause, extend time . . . .”).
25
26
27
28
1
California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.01(h) defines “reasonable” and “reasonably” in this context
to mean “the conduct of a reasonably prudent and competent lawyer.”
3
23-cv-01928-W-MMP
1
Additionally, the Court would still grant the Motion to Withdraw even if it
2
considered Plaintiff’s late-filed Opposition. While Plaintiff is correct that Attorney’s
3
assertion of a “breakdown of the attorney-client relationship” is somewhat conclusory,
4
Plaintiff’s own Opposition makes up for this by demonstrating just how unsalvageable
5
the relationship between Plaintiff and Attorney has become. For example, Plaintiff
6
himself characterizes Attorney of making “[K]nowingly false statements. There is no
7
breakdown of the relationship. There is no conflict of interest. These claims are vague,
8
unsupported by any evidence and a falsehood. It is patent that counsel is attempting to
9
abandon me as the client after the case has been essentially gutted, mandating the motion
10
be denied.” (Opposition at ¶ 11.) The Court fails to see how there can be “no breakdown
11
of the relationship” while Plaintiff is simultaneously accusing his own Attorney of
12
making “knowingly false statements.” Indeed, the Court does not see how the attorney-
13
client relationship could reasonably continue at this point.
14
Furthermore, Plaintiff’s own assertions that he would suffer “severe prejudice if
15
current counsel is permitted to be relieved . . . as [Attorney] has taken no reasonable steps
16
to avoid prejudice of my rights” is itself entirely conclusory.2 (Opposition at ¶ 12.)
17
Plaintiff does not articulate how exactly he would be prejudiced by Attorney’s
18
withdrawal nor what “reasonable steps” Attorney should take. To the contrary, the
19
Magistrate Judge has postponed the Early Neutral Evaluation until the Court’s ruling on
20
the Motion to Withdraw. ([Doc. 19].) The scheduling order has not yet been entered and
21
there are no other impending dates in this case. Plaintiff himself is an attorney admitted
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Plaintiff also argues that “I object to the Motion’s request for ‘NO ORAL ARGUMENT PURSUANT
TO RULE 7.1(D)(1).’ . . . I request [oral] argument . . . .” (Opposition at ¶ 4.) Plaintiff is mistaken that
Attorney somehow “request[ed]” “NO ORAL ARGUMENT” in his Motion to Withdraw. Instead,
Attorney was simply following the Court’s Chambers Civil Rules. See Judge Whelan’s Chambers Civil
Rule 3(b) (“The Court generally decides motions based on the papers submitted by the parties. In the
caption of its notice of motion and motion, the moving party shall include the following: NO ORAL
ARGUMENT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE. If the Court decides that oral argument will assist it in
deciding a given motion, counsel will be notified telephonically at least three (3) court days before the
scheduled hearing date.”)
4
23-cv-01928-W-MMP
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?