Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00468/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00468-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Civil Remedies: Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

FILED 

JUN 0 4 2018 

Cl.ERK US DIS I HIC I COURT 

SOUTHERN lJIS I HICl Or CALIFORNIA 

BY • ' DEPUTY 

8 

9 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 ASHWIN KHOBRAGADE, Case No.: 16cv468-WQH-AGS 

12 Plaintiff, ORDER 

13 v. 

14 COVIDIEN, LP, 

15 Defendant. 

16 HAYES, Judge: 

17 Plaintiff Ashwin Khobragade filed a Motion to Substitute Attorney (ECF No. 47) on 

18 May 30, 2018 and an Ex Parte Application to Enlarge Time to Respond to Summary 

19 Judgment Motion and Continue Hearing (ECF No. 48) on May 31, 2018. Plaintiff requests 

20 that the Court permit current counsel, William D. Bowen, to withdraw as counsel and allow 

21 Plaintiff to proceed prose. (ECF No. 47). In a declaration submitted to the Court, Plaintiff 

22 states that conflicts arose between Mr. Bowen and Plaintiff and that Plaintiff is no longer 

23 working with Mr. Bowen. (ECF No. 48-2). In a declaration by William Bowen, Bowen 

24 states, "Plaintiff has terminated my representation based on conflicts between myself and 

25 him with respect to this litigation, and the attorney-client relationship has had an 

26 irretrievable breakdown. As such, I can no longer work with the Plaintiff, Mr. Ashwin 

27 Khobragrade, on this matter." (ECF No. 48-1 at 2). Plaintiff further requests that the Court 

28 grant a 28-day extension of the time for Plaintiff to file his response to the pending motion 

16cv468-WQH-AGS 

Case 3:16-cv-00468-WQH-AGS Document 53 Filed 06/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
1 for summary judgment. (ECF No. 48). Plaintiff asserts that he will need additional time 

2 to respond to the motion for summary judgment because he must now "locate or secure 

3 counsel to advise me on opposing this motion and/or oppose it as a prose." (ECF No. 48-

4 2 at 3). 

5 On May 31, 2018, Defendant Covidien, LP filed a notice of intent to file an 

6 opposition to Plaintiff's ex parte application to enlarge time to respond to summary 

7 judgment motion and continue hearing. (ECF No. 49). On June 1, 2018, Defendant filed 

8 the opposition. (ECF No. 52). Defendant contends that Plaintiff's history of unjustified 

9 delay in this case warrants a denial of his ex parte application. Defendant contends that 

10 Plaintiff's decision to terminate his representation by counsel does not entitle him to more 

11 time to prepare an opposition to the motion for summary judgment that he has been aware 

12 of since at least May 18, 2018. Defendant asserts that an extension is not warranted by 

13 Plaintiff's efforts to secure new counsel because Plaintiff has been seeking new counsel 

14 for at least four months. Defendant contends that a 28-day extension is excessive in light 

15 of Plaintiff's failure to conduct discovery, the late filing of the request, and Plaintiff's 

16 relative sophistication and familiarity with the case. Defendant asserts that "to the extent 

1 7 this Court is inclined to provide Plaintiff ex parte relief and permit withdrawal of his 

18 counsel, Plaintiff should receive no more than an additional three court days to prepare his 

19 opposition." (ECF No. 52 at 9). 

20 An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court. Darby v. City of 

21 Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992). "The decision to grant or deny counsel's 

22 motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial court." Irwin v. Mascott, 

23 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28264 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2004) (citing Washington v. Sherwin Real 

24 Estate, Inc., 694 F .2d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1982) ). District courts ruling upon motions to 

25 

26 

27 

28 

withdraw as counsel have considered: 

( 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. 

2 

16cv468-WQH-AGS 

Case 3:16-cv-00468-WQH-AGS Document 53 Filed 06/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
1 

2 Irwin, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28264, at 4. 

3 After reviewing the record and the reasons for withdrawal noted by Plaintiff and 

4 Plaintiffs current counsel, William Bowen, the Court concludes that there is good cause 

5 to allow Bowen to withdraw as counsel and allow Plaintiff to proceed pro se. The Court 

6 further concludes that the withdrawal will not prejudice other litigants, harm the 

7 administration of justice, or unreasonably delay resolution of the case. In light of the 

8 withdrawal of Plaintiffs counsel and Plaintiffs new pro se status, the Court also grants 

9 Plaintiff the requested 28-day extension of time to file an opposition to the pending motion 

10 for summary judgment. See Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Hercules Inc., 146 

11 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir.1998) ("district courts have inherent power to control their 

12 dockets"); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting "the strong policy 

13 

14 

underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits"). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to substitute attorney is granted. (ECF 

15 No 47). The Court permits William Bowen to withdraw as counsel and permits Plaintiff 

16 to proceed pro se. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket to reflect Plaintiffs 

17 pro se status and the address provided by Plaintiff on the motion to substitute attorney. 

18 (ECF No. 47). If Plaintiff obtains counsel at any point in this litigation, Plaintiff shall 

19 notify the Court within ten (10) days of obtaining counsel. 

20 

21 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Ex Parte Application to Enlarge Time to 

Respond to Summary Judgment Motion and Continue Hearing is GRANTED (ECF No. 

22 48). Any opposition to the motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before July 

23 

24 

2, 2018. Any reply shall be filed on or before July 9, 2018. 

25 

26 DATED: 

27 

28 

WILLIAMQ. 

United States 1strict Judge 

3 

16cv468-WQH-AGS 

Case 3:16-cv-00468-WQH-AGS Document 53 Filed 06/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3