Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01942/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01942-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1332tl Diversity-Torts to Land

---

1

18cv1942-WQH-AGS

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

CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a 

municipal corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONSANTO COMPANY, 

SOLUTIA INC., PHARMACIA 

CORPORATION,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv1942-WQH-AGS

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Counsel Bart 

Miesfeld filed by Plaintiff City of Chula Vista. (ECF No. 25). 

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

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

court.” Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., 2008 WL 410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 

2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also United States v. Carter, 

560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009); S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 83.3(g)(3) (requiring that a notice 

Case 3:18-cv-01942-WQH-AGS Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv1942-WQH-AGS

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

of motion to withdraw as attorney of record be served on the adverse party and on the 

moving attorney’s client, along with a declaration of service). 

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, 2010 WL 444708, at * 1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 

2010) (citation omitted). The Local Rules of this district incorporate “the standards of 

professional conduct required by members of the State Bar of California,” which permit 

withdrawal when “[t]he member believes in good faith, in a proceeding pending before a 

tribunal, that the tribunal will find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal.” See

S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 83.4; Rules of Prof’l Conduct of the State Bar of Cal., Rule 3-700(C)(6). 

Plaintiff moves for withdrawal of Miesfeld as counsel and states that “Mr. Miesfeld 

is no longer employed by the City of Chula Vista.” (ECF No. 25 at 2). Plaintiff filed a

declaration by Karen Rogan in support of the Motion. (ECF No. 25-1). The declaration 

states, “I am an attorney of record for Plaintiff City of Chula Vista in this matter. . . . City 

of Chula Vista continues to represent Plaintiff City of Chula Vista in this case as counsel 

of record. Baron & Budd, P.C. is also counsel of record to Plaintiff.” Id. at 2. The Court 

finds that good cause exists to grant withdrawal.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Counsel 

Bart Miesfeld filed by Plaintiff City of Chula Vista (ECF No. 25), is GRANTED. 

Dated: March 27, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01942-WQH-AGS Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2