Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00996/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00996-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0402 Social Security Benefits

---

1

19cv996-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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAUDE L.,

Plaintiff, 

v.

ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner 

of Social Security,

Defendant. 

Case No.: 19cv996-MDD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF 

DENISE BOURGEOIS HALEY TO 

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

[ECF No. 16]

Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Denise Bourgeois Haley of the Law Offices 

of Lawrence D. Rohlfing (“Rohlfing”), moves to withdraw as attorney of record 

for Plaintiff Claude L. (ECF No. 16). No party has opposed the motion. (See

Docket). For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Rohlfing’s 

motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff Claude L. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action 

against Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g), requesting judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision 

denying his claims for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the 

Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion to 

Case 3:19-cv-00996-MDD Document 19 Filed 01/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

19cv996-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

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2). 

On July 15, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP. (ECF No. 

8).

The Commissioner filed the Administrative Record on September 30, 

2019. (ECF No. 13). On November 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for an 

extension of time to file a merits brief. (ECF No. 14). The Court granted the 

motion, giving Plaintiff until December 6, 2019 to file a merits brief. (ECF 

No. 15). Plaintiff did not file a merits brief. (See Docket). Thereafter, 

Rohlfing filed the instant motion to withdraw as Plaintiff’s counsel of record. 

(ECF No. 16). In the accompanying declaration, Denise Bourgeois Haley 

states that representation of Plaintiff has become unreasonably difficult. (Id.

at 5). In particular, Ms. Haley states that she has been unable to obtain 

guidance and approval from Plaintiff on the “specific direction for the case.” 

(Id.). Ms. Haley wrote, emailed, and called Plaintiff on December 2, 2019 and 

December 6, 2019. (Id.). Ms. Haley did not receive a response from Plaintiff. 

(Id.).

II. DISCUSSION

“An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” 

Darby v. City of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992); see also 

S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 83.3(f)(3). The decision to grant or deny a motion for 

withdrawal is within the court’s sound discretion, and courts consider the 

following factors: “(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.” Garrett v. Ruiz, No. 11cv2540-IEG 

(WVG), 2013 WL 163420, at * 2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013).

Here, the Court finds that good cause for withdrawal exists. Pursuant 

Case 3:19-cv-00996-MDD Document 19 Filed 01/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

19cv996-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

to the California Rules of Professional Conduct, an attorney may seek to 

withdraw from representation if the client “renders it unreasonably difficult 

for the member to carry out the employment effectively.” Cal. Rules of 

Professional Conduct Rule 3-700(C)(1)(d). “Refusal to participate in the 

litigation is undoubtedly one such example.” Leatt Corp. v. Innovative Safety 

Tech., LLC, No. 09cv1301-IEG (POR), 2010 WL 444708, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 

2, 2010). In her accompanying declaration, Ms. Haley states that Plaintiff 

would not provide guidance and approval on the “specific direction of the 

case” and that she has been unable to communicate with Plaintiff at all. 

(ECF No. 16 at 5). The Court finds that this constitutes good cause for 

withdrawal. Further, the Commissioner does not oppose the motion, and it 

appears that neither party will suffer prejudice as a result of Rohlfing’s 

withdrawal given that Plaintiff may obtain another attorney or proceed pro se

in this matter. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Rohlfing’s motion to 

withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff.

The Court cautions Plaintiff that if he does not obtain a new attorney, 

he must proceed pro se and file a merits brief on his own behalf. 

Additionally, failure to comply with this Order and file a merits brief may 

result in dismissal of this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(C) (stating that 

“the court may issue any just orders” if a party “fails to obey a . . . pretrial 

order”); see also S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 83.1(a) (permitting the Court to impose 

sanctions, including dismissal of an action, for failure to comply with any 

order of the court); S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 41.1 (permitting the Court to dismiss a 

case for failure to comply with the provisions of the local rules of this Court).

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s counsel’s 

motion to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff Claude L. The Clerk of 

Case 3:19-cv-00996-MDD Document 19 Filed 01/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

19cv996-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

Court is instructed to terminate Denise Bourgeois Haley of the Law Offices of 

Lawrence D. Rohlfing as attorney of record for Plaintiff Claude L. The Clerk

of Court is further instructed to amend the Docket to reflect that Plaintiff 

Claude L. is proceeding pro se with the following address:

Claude Randall Little

1158 Mayberry Lane

Vista, CA 92083

In light of the withdrawal, the Court sua sponte EXTENDS the 

deadline for Plaintiff to file a merits brief to February 11, 2020. Defendant 

must file its opposition on or before March 17, 2020. Plaintiff may file a 

reply, if any, on or before March 31, 2020. 

Finally, the Clerk of Court is instructed to mail a copy of this order to 

Claude Randall Little’s address listed above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-00996-MDD Document 19 Filed 01/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4