Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02423/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02423-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1

11md2286-MMA (MDD)

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

IN RE: MIDLAND CREDIT 

MANAGEMENT INC. TELEPHONE 

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 

LITIGATION

DIANE FLOYD,

Plaintiff,

v.

MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, 

INC.,

Defendant.

Lead Case No.: 11md2286-MMA 

(MDD)

Member Case No.: 14cv2423-MMA 

(MDD)

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY OF 

RECORD FOR PLAINTIFF DIANE 

FLOYD

[Doc. No. 593]

On June 1, 2018, counsel of record for Plaintiff Diane Floyd (“Plaintiff”), Krohn & 

Moss, Ltd. (“Krohn & Moss”), filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. Doc. No. 593-1. 

A copy of Krohn & Moss’ motion was served on Plaintiff. Doc. No. 593 at 3. To date, 

no opposition has been filed by Plaintiff or Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc. 

(“Defendant”). See Docket.

An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court, and “[t]he 

decision to grant or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of 

the trial court.” Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 07CV594-WQH (NLS), 2008 WL 

Case 3:14-cv-02423-MMA-MDD Document 34 Filed 06/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

11md2286-MMA (MDD)

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

410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008) (internal citations omitted); see also Darby v. 

City of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992); Civ. L.R. 83.3(f)(3). In ruling 

on a motion to withdraw as counsel, courts consider: (1) the reasons why withdrawal is 

sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause 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, 2008 WL 410694, at *2.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.4(b), each attorney “permitted to practice in this 

court must be familiar with and comply with the standards of professional conduct 

required by the members of the State Bar of California.” Civ. L.R. 83.4(b). Counsel in 

this Court may withdraw as attorney of record if the client’s “conduct renders it 

unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively.” Cal. R. 

of Prof. Conduct, R. 3-700(C)(1)(d).

Here, Krohn & Moss explains that “[t]here has been a breakdown in 

communication between Plaintiff . . . and her counsel, which prevents counsel from 

adequately representing the rights of Plaintiff. The attorney-client relationship . . . has 

deteriorated to the point where counsel does not believe they can continue to represent 

Plaintiff.” Doc. No. 593-1 at 1-2. Krohn & Moss has attempted several times to contact 

Plaintiff via telephone calls and e-mails, and has also sent written correspondence to 

Plaintiff on April 17, 2018, April 27, 2018, and May 11, 2018. Id. at 2; Doc. No. 593-2 

(“Tieman Decl.”). Plaintiff has not responded to any of Krohn & Moss’ attempts to 

contact her. Doc. No. 593-1 at 2; see also Tieman Decl.

As a result of Plaintiff’s failure to communicate with her counsel of record, the 

Court finds that Plaintiff has made it unreasonably difficult for Krohn & Moss to 

adequately continue representation. The Court further concludes that Krohn & Moss has 

met the notice requirements of the local rules, and that withdrawal will not prejudice 

Plaintiff or any other party. Therefore, Krohn & Moss’ motion to withdraw as counsel 

for Plaintiff is GRANTED. 

//

Case 3:14-cv-02423-MMA-MDD Document 34 Filed 06/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

11md2286-MMA (MDD)

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

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. Krohn & Moss must file a proof of service showing that a copy of this order

was served on Plaintiff Diane Floyd; and

2. Plaintiff Diane Floyd is SUBSTITUTED in Krohn & Moss’ place to act as 

her own counsel. Krohn & Moss is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with a copy of her 

complete case file by June 25, 2018, if it has not already done so. Plaintiff is hereby 

advised that she no longer has an attorney to represent her in this case. While Plaintiff 

may choose to continue to represent herself, the Court strongly recommends that she 

obtain a new attorney to handle this litigation on her behalf. Plaintiff is advised that in 

acting as her own counsel, she is responsible for complying with all court rules and 

applicable laws, as well as all currently scheduled court deadlines and hearings. Failure 

to do so, and failure to comply with any order of this Court may result in sanctions or in 

the dismissal of this action. Plaintiff is also hereby ordered to keep the Court apprised of 

her current mailing address and telephone number at all times.1 Failure to do so will 

result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

1 Until otherwise notified by Plaintiff, the Clerk of the Court is instructed to list Plaintiff’s mailing 

address on the docket as: 4304 N. FM 148, Crandall, TX 75114.

Dated: June 15, 2018

Case 3:14-cv-02423-MMA-MDD Document 34 Filed 06/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3