Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02395/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02395-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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 - 06cv2395 WQH (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE

COMPANY, an Indiana corporation,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv2395 WQH (NLS)

ORDER

vs.

NICEFORO HERRERA, individually and

doing business as Acapulco’s Produce

Market; MALNICK PROPERTIES LLC, a

Connecticut corporation; LUIS BENITEZ;

and JOHANNA BENITEZ, by and through

her guardian at litem, Luis Benitez,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

On August 21, 2007, A. Jason Kerckhoff and Kerckhoff Law, APC filed a Motion to

Withdraw as Counsel of Record for Defendants Luis Benitez, individually, and Johanna Benitez,

by and through her guardian ad litem, Luis Benitez (“Defendants”). (Doc. # 37). According to the

Declaration of A. Jason Kerckhoff, A. Jason Kerckhoff and Kerckhoff Law, APC moved to

withdraw because Defendants have failed to cooperate in providing documents and information

necessary for their representation, Defendants have failed to keep counsel advised as to their

whereabouts, making further contact impossible, and counsel has determined there is little

likelihood that Defendants will prevail in contesting the insurance coverage issues presented in the

action, such that the cost and expense of such defense is unjustified. 

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

Case 3:06-cv-02395-WQH-CAB Document 55 Filed 11/05/07 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

- 2 - 06cv2395 WQH (NLS)

Torrance, 810 F.Supp. 275, 276 (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 Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, Inc.,

694 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1982). Among other things, courts ruling upon motions to withdraw

as counsel have considered,

(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.

Irwin, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28264 at 4.

After reviewing the record and the reasons for withdrawal noted by Attorney A. Jason

Kerckhoff, the Court concludes that there is good cause to grant A. Jason Kerckhoff and Kerckhoff

Law, APC’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. The Court further concludes that the withdrawal

will not prejudice justice or unduly delay resolution of the case. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record (Doc. #

37), filed by A. Jason Kerckhoff and Kerckhoff Law, APC, is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Luis Benitez, individually, and Johanna

Benitez, by and through her guardian ad litem, Luis Benitez have forty-five (45) days to obtain

new counsel. If Defendants do not respond to this Order by Friday December 21, 2007, the Court

will deem Defendants as proceeding pro se. 

The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this Order on Defendants Luis

Benitez, individually, and Johanna Benitez, by and through her guardian ad litem, Luis Benitez by

mail at the following address:

3342 Imperial Avenue

San Diego, CA 92102

DATED: November 5, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02395-WQH-CAB Document 55 Filed 11/05/07 Page 2 of 2