Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00398/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00398-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID GHUSAR and SANA 

BHUMBLA, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

PARK ‘N SHADE OF TUCSON, INC., 

 Defendant.

 No. 2:22-cv-00398-TLN-JDP

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Withdraw filed by Daniel Setareh of 

Saterah Law, APLC, attorney of record for Plaintiff Sana Bhumbla (“Plaintiff”). (ECF No. 27.) 

Defendant did not file an opposition. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the 

motion. 

The local rules of this district require an attorney who would withdraw and leave his or 

her client without representation to obtain leave of court upon a noticed motion. E.D. Cal. L.R. 

182(d). Local Rule 182(d) also requires an attorney to provide notice to the client and all other 

parties who have appeared, and an affidavit stating the current or last known address of the client. 

Id. Finally, to comply with Local Rule 182(d), the attorney must conform to the requirements of 

the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Id.

Case 2:22-cv-00398-DC-JDP Document 29 Filed 08/06/24 Page 1 of 3
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

2

The decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw is within a court’s discretion. 

McNally v. Eye Dog Found. for the Blind, Inc., No. 09-cv-AWI-SKO-01174, 2011 WL 1087117, 

at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2011). District courts within this circuit have considered several factors 

when evaluating a motion to withdraw, including the reason for withdrawal, prejudice to the 

client, prejudice to the other litigants, harm to the administration of justice, and possible delay. 

See, e.g., Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. 09-cv-01643-SBA, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010); CE Res., Inc. v. Magellan Group, LLC, No. 08-cv-02999-MCE-KJM, 

2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2009); Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 07-cv00594-WQH-NLS, 2008 WL 410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008).

In the instant case, Plaintiff’s counsel satisfied Local Rule 182(d) by filing a declaration 

that he informed Plaintiff of his intent to withdraw and by providing the Court with Plaintiff’s last 

known address. (ECF No. 27 at 7.) Plaintiff’s counsel also established withdrawal is proper 

under the California Rules of Professional Conduct. More specifically, California Rule of 

Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(4) states an attorney may withdraw from representing a client if the 

client “renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively.” 

In addition, California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(5) allows an attorney to withdraw if 

the client breaches a material term of an agreement with, or obligation, to the lawyer relating to 

the representation. Plaintiff’s counsel represents there has been a breakdown in communication 

with Plaintiff which has resulted in a fundamental disagreement as to the prosecution of this 

matter and Plaintiff has breached the retainer agreement. (Id.) Accordingly, there is good cause 

to allow Plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw. 

Although this matter is currently set for trial in February 2025, the Court finds there is a 

low risk of prejudice to Plaintiff and the other litigants if this motion is granted because there is 

sufficient time for Plaintiff to acquire new counsel to represent her at trial or alternatively prepare 

to represent herself at trial. Lastly, the Court cannot identify any harm to the administration of 

justice or possible delay that would result from granting the motion to withdraw. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 

27), leaving Plaintiff in Pro Per. Plaintiff has sixty (60) days from the entry of this Order to 

Case 2:22-cv-00398-DC-JDP Document 29 Filed 08/06/24 Page 2 of 3
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

either: (1) inform the Court that she intends to proceed to trial without counsel; or (2) acquire new 

representation and file a notice of appearance by new counsel. Failure to follow the Court’s 

orders may result in dismissal of Plaintiff from this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(b). The Clerk of Court is directed to serve this Order on Plaintiff Sana Bhumbla at 93 Via 

Pescara, American Canyon, California, 94503. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: August 5, 2024

Troy L. Nunley

United States District Judge

Case 2:22-cv-00398-DC-JDP Document 29 Filed 08/06/24 Page 3 of 3