Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01124/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01124-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

SHAUN SHANNON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv1124-MMA (JMA)

NOTICE AND ORDER

PROVIDING TENTATIVE

RULINGS RE: DEFENSE

COUNSELS’ EX PARTE MOTIONS

TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

FOR DEFENDANT WINDSOR

EQUITY GROUP, INC. 

[Doc. Nos. 53, 57] 

v.

WINDSOR EQUITY GROUP, INC.,

Defendant.

Currently set for hearing before the Court on Monday, March 30, 2015 at 

9:00 a.m. are Ellis Law Group, LLP (“ELG”) and Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann

& Girard’s (“KMTG”) separate ex parte motions to withdraw as counsel for

Defendant Windsor Equity Group, Inc. Having considered the parties’ submissions,

and in anticipation of Monday’s hearing, the Court issues the following tentative

rulings:

“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 S.D. Cal. Civ.

R. 83.3(g). 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;

- 1 - 12cv1124-MMA (JMA)

Case 3:12-cv-01124-MMA-JMA Document 62 Filed 03/26/15 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

(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, 2013 WL 163420, *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013).

The Court tentatively finds that good cause exists for Ellis Law Group, LLP

and Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard to withdraw as counsel for

Defendant. It appears that Defendant has consented to the withdrawal of both law

firms. See Steinheimer Decl. ¶ 3; Coleman Supp. Decl. ¶ 3. Although not

dispositive, a client’s consent may provide the basis for permissive withdrawal of

counsel. See Cal. Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(5) (permitting a member

to request permission to withdraw because “[t]he client knowingly and freely assents

to termination of the employment”). Additionally, it appears that KMTG has not

been involved in litigating this case since June 2012, almost 3 years ago, and ELG

has represented to this Court that further representation of Defendant is untenable

based on its professional obligations. Although counsels’ withdrawal may result in

delay of trial, any prejudice to Plaintiff resulting from this minor delay can be

mitigated by requiring Defendant to retain new counsel within 21 days or be subject

to sanctions, including entry of default judgment. Once new counsel has entered an

appearance, the Court will reset the trial date. Finally, the risk of harm to the

administration of justice weighs in favor of permitting withdrawal. 

Additionally, June Coleman of Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard may

appear telephonically at Monday’s hearing. Counsel shall call in to the

undersigned’s courtroom prior to the 9:00 a.m. hearing.

The Court advises the parties that these rulings are tentative. The Court will

entertain additional argument at the hearing on Monday, March 30, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 26, 2015

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv1124-MMA (JMA)

Case 3:12-cv-01124-MMA-JMA Document 62 Filed 03/26/15 Page 2 of 2