Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00435/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00435-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 355
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441ml Removal- Motor Vehicle Prod Liability

---

1

19CV435-GPC(KSC)

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

MAJID AHMADI,

Plaintiff,

v.

MERCEDES BENZ USA, LLC, a 

Delaware Limited Liability Company; and 

DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19CV435-GPC(KSC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW AS PLAINTIFF’S 

COUNSEL

[Dkt. No. 17.]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel. (Dkt. No. 

17.) Defendant filed an opposition. (Dkt. No. 19.) A telephonic hearing was held on 

March 20, 2020. (Dkt. No. 24.) At the hearing, Plaintiff appeared as well as his counsel 

Larry Sidiropoulos, Esq. and Matthew Rogers, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendant. 

Based on the reasoning below, the Court GRANTS the motion to withdraw as Plaintiff’s 

counsel. 

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). The trial court has discretion 

whether to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw in a civil case. See La Grand 

Case 3:19-cv-00435-GPC-KSC Document 25 Filed 03/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19CV435-GPC(KSC)

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

v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998); Stewart v. Boeing Co., No. CV 12-5621 

RSWL(AGRx), 2013 WL 3168269, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2013). Courts should 

consider the following factors when ruling upon a motion to withdraw as counsel: (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. Curtis v. Illumination 

Arts, Inc., No. C12-0991JLR, 2014 WL 556010, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 12, 2014); Deal 

v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. C09-01643 SBA, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 

Sept. 15, 2010). Rule 3-700 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct of the State 

Bar of California provides that an attorney may request a withdrawal if it is unreasonably 

difficult for counsel to carry out his employment effectively or breaches an agreement as 

to expenses or fees. Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(C).

Local Civil Rule 83.3(f)(3) also provides: 

Withdrawals. (a) A notice of motion to withdraw as attorney of record must 

be served on the adverse party and on the moving attorney's client. (b) A 

declaration pertaining to such service must be filed. Failure to make service 

as required by this section or to file the required declaration of service will 

result in a denial of the motion.

Local Civil R. 83.3(f)(3). Plaintiff’s counsel has filed a declaration indicating the motion 

was mailed to Plaintiff and informed opposing counsel of the withdrawal. (Dkt. No. 17-

2, Sidiropoulos Decl. ¶¶ 14, 15.) According to Plaintiff’s counsel, communications have 

broken down with Plaintiff to the point where it is no longer possible for the Sidiropoulos 

Law Firm, APC to continue to effectively represent Plaintiff’s interest in the case. 

Plaintiff refuses to comply with the advice of counsel concerning this litigation and 

unwilling to comply with terms of the retainer agreement by failing to pay for expert 

costs. (Id. ¶¶ 3-6, 9, 11.) Moreover, around September 2019, Plaintiff agreed that he no 

longer wanted Plaintiff’s counsel to represent him. (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff’s counsel also

argues there will be no prejudice as all evidence have been preserved, the case is less than 

Case 3:19-cv-00435-GPC-KSC Document 25 Filed 03/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19CV435-GPC(KSC)

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

thirteen months old and there is sufficient time for Plaintiff to secure new counsel to 

become familiar with the case. Finally, withdrawal would not cause any harm to the 

administration of justice and would not cause substantial delay in the case. Finally, 

Plaintiff’s counsel seeks to stay the action for 90 days in order for Plaintiff to secure new 

counsel. 

Defendant does not oppose the withdrawal of counsel but objects to Plaintiff’s 

counsel’s representation that defense counsel is amenable to extending the deadline for 

fact discovery. Defense counsel is amenable to an extension of time of the expert 

discovery deadline but not the fact discovery deadline.

1

 

Based on the factors outlined above, the Court finds that withdrawal of Plaintiff’s 

counsel should be granted as Plaintiff has indicated he does not want the Sidiropoulos 

Law Firm, APC representing him and Plaintiff has made it “unreasonably difficult for 

counsel to carry out his employment effectively.” Therefore, withdrawal of counsel is 

granted. 

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court GRANTS the motion to withdraw as counsel for

Plaintiff. Plaintiff is granted 60 days to retain counsel. The Court sets a status 

conference on May 22, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2D. The Court further stays any 

remaining deadlines in the case by 60 days.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 20, 2020

 

1 On March 9, 2020, Magistrate Judge Crawford extended fact discovery until April 1, 2020 for the sole 

purpose of completing Plaintiff’s Rule 35 medical examination. (Dkt. No. 21.) On March 11, 2020, the 

Magistrate Judge granted the parties’ joint motion to extend expert discovery deadlines. (Dkt. No. 22.) 

Case 3:19-cv-00435-GPC-KSC Document 25 Filed 03/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3