Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02770/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02770-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

CINDEE MCNALLY, on behalf of herself

and all other similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-2770-IEG (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENSE

COUNSEL’S EX PARTE MOTION

TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

OF RECORD

[Doc. No. 13]

vs.

COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL

SYSTEMS, INC., and DOES 1 through 10,

Defendants.

Before the Court is defense counsel’s ex parte motion to withdraw as counsel of record for 

Defendant Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc. [Doc. No. 13.] For the reasons below, defense

counsel’s motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is a prospective class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection

Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. [Doc. No. 1.] Discovery has yet to commence. [See Doc. No. 12.]

Defense counsel seeks, and Defendant consents to, withdrawal based on Defendant’s inability to

pay defense counsel’s fees. [Doc. No. 13-1 at 2.]

DISCUSSION

“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.”

Garrett v. Ruiz, 2013 WL 163420, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013); see also Southern District of

California Local Rule 83.3(g)(3). “In ruling on a motion to withdraw as counsel, courts consider:

- 1 - 12cv2770

Case 3:12-cv-02770-IEG-MDD Document 14 Filed 02/25/13 Page 1 of 2
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) 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, 2013 WL 163420, at *2. “The

local rules of this district incorporate ‘the standards of professional conduct required by members

of the State Bar of California,’ which in turn allow withdrawal where a client’s ‘conduct renders it

unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively.’” Id. (quoting

Southern District of California Local Rule 83.4.). Failure to pay agreed attorneys’ fees can

constitute such conduct. See Indymac Fed. Bank, F.S.B. v. McComic, 2010 WL 2000013, at *1

(S.D. Cal. May 18, 2010). And “Rule 3-700(C)(5) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct

expressly allows withdrawal where the client ‘knowingly and freely assents to termination of the

employment.’” Id. 

Here, Defendant’s consent and inability to pay fees establish good cause for withdrawal. 

See id. Granting the motion, however, would leave the corporate Defendant without counsel, and

“[i]t is a longstanding rule that corporations and other incorporated associations must appear in

court through an attorney.” CE Res., Inc. v. Magellan Group, LLC, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D.

Cal. Oct. 14, 2009) (citing In re Am. West Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994) (per

curiam)); see also Indymac, 2010 WL 2000013, at *1 (citing Southern District of California Civil

Local Rule 83.3(k)). Though some courts have relied on this requirement to deny similar motions,

see, e.g., CE Res., 2009 WL 3367489, at *2, the Court finds such an outcome unwarranted here

given the early stage of the case as well as Defendant’s consent and ample opportunity to retain

substitute counsel as needed. [See Doc No. 13-1 at 2 (parties “have agreed that it would be in

[Defendant’s] best interest to find substitute counsel.”).] But Defendant is hereby cautioned that

failure to promptly retain substitute counsel risks default.

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defense counsel’s ex parte motion to

withdraw as counsel of record. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 25, 2013 ______________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv2770

Case 3:12-cv-02770-IEG-MDD Document 14 Filed 02/25/13 Page 2 of 2