Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00227/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00227-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

-1- 19cv227-MMA (BGS)

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 

EVA MARIE BAILEY, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; and 

U.S. BANK, N.A., in its Capacity as 

Trustee for the Holders of Mastr Asset 

Backed Securities Trust 2005-WMCI, 

Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 19cv227-MMA (BGS)

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS 

COUNSEL 

[Doc. No. 11]

John R. Habashy, Tiffany N. Buda, and Lexicon Law, PC (collectively, “the firm”) 

move to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff Eva Marie Bailey (“Plaintiff”). See 

Doc. No. 11. The motion is unopposed to date. The Court found the matter suitable for 

determination on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 

7.1.d.1. See Doc. No. 13. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the firm’s 

unopposed motion to withdraw as counsel. 

BACKGROUND

On January 31, 2019, Plaintiff commenced this action against Ocwen Loan 

Servicing, LLC and U.S. Bank, N.A., in its Capacity as Trustee for the Holders of Mastr 

Asset Backed Securities Trust 2005-WMCA, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates 

Case 3:19-cv-00227-MMA-BGS Document 14 Filed 05/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
 -2- 19cv227-MMA (BGS)

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

(“Defendants”). See Doc. No. 1 (hereinafter “Compl.”). Plaintiff alleges claims for: (1) 

violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 C.F.R. § 1026, et seq.; (2) 

violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.; (3) 

violations of the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights, Assembly Bill No. 278, Chapter 89, 2011-

2012, Cal. Civ. Code § 2920, et seq.; (4) breach of contract; and (5) negligence. See id. 

On February 25, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). See Doc. No. 7. On March 

18, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion to stay all litigation “because they [are] in the 

process of having substantial settlement discussions.” Doc. No. 9 at 2. The Court 

granted the joint motion and extended the current briefing schedule on Defendants’ 

motion. See Doc. No. 10. Specifically, Plaintiff’s opposition must be filed on or before 

June 14, 2019, and any reply brief must be filed on or before June 21, 2019. See id. at 2. 

Plaintiff’s counsel filed the instant motion on April 16, 2019. See Doc. No. 11. 

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 CivLR 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). 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3, “[a] notice of motion to withdraw as attorney of 

record must be served on the adverse party and on the moving attorney’s client.” CivLR 

83.3.f.3.a. Additionally, a declaration “pertaining to such service must be filed.” CivLR 

83.3.f.3.b. Moreover, under the California Rules of Professional Conduct, an attorney 

may seek to withdraw from representation if the client “renders it unreasonably difficult 

for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively[.]” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 

Case 3:19-cv-00227-MMA-BGS Document 14 Filed 05/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
 -3- 19cv227-MMA (BGS)

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

1.16(b)(4). 

Here, the Court finds good cause for the firm’s withdrawal. In his accompanying 

declaration, Mr. Habashy states that the firm was retained on or about November 7, 2018 

to represent Plaintiff in this action. See Doc. No. 11-2 (hereinafter “Habashy Decl.”). 

Since then, “[c]ommunication has eroded and there are irreconcilable differences 

between [the] firm and Plaintiff.” Id. ¶ 3. The Court finds that this constitutes good 

cause for withdrawal. See Hoffman v. United States, No. 7-cv-273 WQH (LSP), 2007 

WL 3037463, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2007) (granting motion o withdraw as counsel due 

to conflict of interest and irreconcilable differences). Moreover, the firm took all the 

appropriate steps to notify Plaintiff and defense counsel of its intent to withdraw as 

counsel. See Doc. No. 11-1. Further, Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, and it appears 

that neither party will suffer prejudice as a result of the firm’s withdrawal from this 

matter. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the firm’s unopposed motion to withdraw as 

counsel. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the firm’s unopposed motion to 

withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is instructed 

to terminate John R. Habashy and Tiffany N. Buda of Lexicon Law, PC as attorneys of 

record for Plaintiff. 

If Plaintiff wishes to substitute new counsel, she must notify the Court of 

substituted counsel within thirty (30) days of this Order. The Court advises Plaintiff that 

until she retains new counsel, she is proceeding pro se in this matter. The Clerk of Court 

is directed to indicate Plaintiff’s pro se status on the docket and update Plaintiff’s address 

to her last known address as set forth in the firm’s moving papers. The Clerk of Court is 

further directed to serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff via U.S. Mail at her last known 

address. 

Plaintiff is further advised that she must provide the Court with her current contact 

information, if different than her last known mailing address, so that the docket of the 

Case 3:19-cv-00227-MMA-BGS Document 14 Filed 05/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
 -4- 19cv227-MMA (BGS)

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

case may be updated accordingly. Plaintiff must also comply with all previous deadlines 

set forth by the Court, as well as the time limitations established by the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure and the Civil Local Rules for the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of California. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2019

 _____________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-00227-MMA-BGS Document 14 Filed 05/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4