Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02927/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02927-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

3:16-cv-02927-BEN-LL

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

SUSAN HOLLANDER,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; 

LEE GILLIAM,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02927-BEN-LL

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF

COUNSEL’S MOTION TO BE 

RELIEVED AS COUNSEL OF 

RECORD FOR PLAINTIFF SUSAN 

HOLLANDER

[Doc. No. 10]

Before the Court is a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record for Plaintiff 

Susan Hollander (“Plaintiff”) filed by Solomon, Grindle, Lidstad & Wintringer, APC 

(“Counsel”). Defendants UBS Financial Services, Inc., and Lee Gilliam (collectively 

“Defendants”) filed a notice indicating that they do not oppose Counsel’s motion. (See

Doc. No. 11.) The Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. Having considered the moving papers, the Court GRANTS the 

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” Darby v. 

City of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 278 (C.D. Cal. 1992). “The decision to grant or deny 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial court.” Irwin v. 

Mascott, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28264 (N.D. Cal. December 1, 2004) (citing Wash. v. 

Case 3:16-cv-02927-BEN-LL Document 14 Filed 07/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:16-cv-02927-BEN-LL

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

Sherwin Real Estate, Inc., 694 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1982)). In considering a request 

to withdraw, courts weigh “(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.” Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 07CV594WQH (NLS), 2008 WL 

410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008). To be permitted to withdraw as counsel, an 

attorney must take reasonable steps to avoid any foreseeable prejudice to the client, give 

due notice to the client, allow time for the client to seek other counsel, and comply with 

all other laws and rules. Hendricks v. BBC Am., Inc., CV 14-2989-RSWL-SSx, 2016 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185291, at *4, 2016 WL 7173810 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2016); Cal. R. 

Prof’l Conduct 3-700(A)(2).

II. DISCUSSION

Counsel’s motion has satisfied the substantive and procedural requirements to be 

relieved in this action. First, Counsel asserts convincing reasons for being relieved. Rule 

3-700(c)(1)(5) permits withdrawal when a client renders it unreasonably difficult for 

counsel to carry out the representation. Id. 3-700(c)(1)(5). Here, Counsel seeks to be 

relieved because of “a failure on the part of Plaintiff to honor obligations of the attorneyclient fee agreement and a breakdown in attorney-client communications.” (Doc. No. 10 

at 1.)

Second, it does not appear that Counsel’s withdrawal would cause prejudice to 

other litigants, as Defendants have submitted a Notice of Non-Opposition to Counsel’s 

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record. (See Doc. No. 11.)

Third, Counsel’s withdrawal would not harm the administration of justice. 

Counsel suggests that the relationship with Plaintiff has irretrievably broken down, which 

indicates to the Court that Counsel’s continuing representation of Plaintiff would not 

advance the pending litigation. See Hershey v. Berkeley, No. EDCV 07-689 VAP 

(JCRx), 2008 WL 4723610, at *1-2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2008) (granting motion to 

withdraw because of the plaintiff’s non-responsiveness and lack of cooperation with 

Case 3:16-cv-02927-BEN-LL Document 14 Filed 07/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:16-cv-02927-BEN-LL

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

counsel which prevented counsel from proceeding with prosecution, resulting in a 

breakdown of the attorney-client relationship). 

Fourth, Counsel’s withdrawal is unlikely to cause significant delay. The case is 

currently stayed by Order entered on a Joint Motion to Stay Action Pending Arbitration 

which has not commenced due to Plaintiff’s health concerns and now, lack of 

communication between Counsel and Plaintiff. (See Doc. No. 10-1 at 2.) Thus, it should 

be relatively easy for a new attorney to become familiar with the case. 

Finally, the Court is satisfied that Counsel has complied with all applicable rules of 

professional responsibility and conduct.

Therefore, the Court finds that Counsel has satisfied the substantive requirements 

necessary to withdraw its representation of Plaintiff in this action.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Solomon, Grindle, Lidstad & 

Wintringer, APC’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record for Plaintiff.

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff obtain new counsel by August 15, 2019. If 

no notice of appearance is filed by August 15, 2019, Plaintiff will be deemed pro se. 

Current Counsel will be relieved when new counsel files a notice of appearance or 

on August 15, 2019, whichever is first. Counsel shall serve Plaintiff with any orders 

from this Court until that time. Counsel shall immediately serve Plaintiff with a copy of 

this Order by mail and file a proof of service thereafter. Lastly, the Court ORDERS

Counsel to file under seal Plaintiff’s address, phone number, and e-mail address by 

August 15, 2019. The Court vacates the Motion Hearing currently scheduled for July 15, 

2019 and will reset the matter for a Status Conference after August 15, 2019 at a later

date. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 12, 2019 ______________________________

HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02927-BEN-LL Document 14 Filed 07/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3