Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02469/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02469-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332ds Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

1

18-CV-02469 W (MDD)

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORAL SCHMALLE et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATRICIA PRUDHOMME et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-CV-02469 W (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEYS’ 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS

Attorney Andres F. Quintana, Attorney John M. Houkom, and the law firm of 

Quintana Law Group, APC (collectively, “QLG”) have filed a motion to withdraw as 

attorney of record for Defendants Patricia Prudhomme and J6 Development, LLC (the 

“Clients”).

1

 The motion is unopposed.

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

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

 

1

In their papers QLG expresses uncertainty about whether it represents Defendant J6 Development, 

LLC. Two documents confirm QLG represents J6 Development, LLC. First, in the Motion to Set Aside 

Default and Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process, QLG lists itself as “Attorneys for

Defendants ... J6 Development, LLC.” (Mot. [Doc. 6] p. 1.) Second, in his declaration, Attorney John 

M. Houkom’s confirms that he is “counsel of record herein for Defendants ... J6 Development, LLC.” 

(Houkom’s Decl. [Doc. 6-2] ¶ 1.)

Case 3:18-cv-02469-W-MDD Document 37 Filed 01/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-CV-02469 W (MDD)

1

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

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

are “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.” CE Resource, 

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

Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, 2009 WL 89141, at *1 (E.D.Cal. 2009)). 

QLG contends irreconcilable differences have arisen during this case, in which

“the Clients have, by their conduct, rendered it unreasonably difficult for QLG to 

effectively represent them.” (Mot. [Doc. 31] 6:14–15.) Additionally, QLG contends “the 

Clients are in material breach of the Agreement by failing and refusing to cooperate with 

QLG’s efforts on their behalf and failure to pay QLG’s fees.” (Id. 7:17–21.) The 

Clients’ failure to pay the attorneys’ fees is a sufficient ground to justify withdrawal. 

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

Additionally, there is nothing in the record suggesting that QLG’s withdrawal will 

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

unduly delay the resolution of this case. QLG has notified and served a copy of this 

motion on the Clients and advised them to seek alternate counsel. (Houkom Decl. [Doc. 

31] ¶ 8.) The motion was also served on the Plaintiffs. (Cert. of Service [Doc. 31-12].) 

To date, no opposition to the motion has been filed. 

For all these reasons, the Court GRANTS Attorney Andres F. Quintana, Attorney 

John M. Houkom, and the law firm of Quintana Law Group, APC’s motion to withdraw 

as attorneys of record for Defendants Patricia Prudhomme and J6 Development, LLC

[Doc. 31] and ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

1. QLG shall ensure service of a copy of this order to Defendants Patricia 

Prudhomme and J6 Development, LLC.

2. Defendants Patricia Prudhomme and J6 Development, LLC shall provide the 

Court with their address on or before January 24, 2020.

Case 3:18-cv-02469-W-MDD Document 37 Filed 01/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-CV-02469 W (MDD)

1

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. As a corporation, Defendant J6 Development, LLC, cannot appear pro se in 

federal court and must appear through licensed counsel. United States v. High Country 

Broad. Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, this matter is STAYED

until February 25, 2020 to allow J6 Development, LLC an opportunity to find 

replacement counsel. 

Upon the expiration of the stay, this Court shall issue a ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion 

for default judgment against Defendant J6 Development, LLC.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-02469-W-MDD Document 37 Filed 01/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3