Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02357/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02357-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e-2no Job Discrimination (National Origin)

---

1

16-CV-2357 W (KSC)

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

RICHARD VALENTINE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN F. KELLY, Secretary of the 

Department of Homeland Security, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-CV-2357 W (KSC)

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEYS’ 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS 

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 

[DOC. 13]

Plaintiff Richard Valentine’s counsel, Grady and Associates (“Grady”), has filed a 

motion to withdraw as attorney of record. The motion is unopposed.

“The grant or denial of an attorney’s motion to withdraw in a civil case is a matter 

addressed to the discretion of the trial court . . . .” Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, 

Inc., 694 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1982). Factors considered in evaluating the motion 

are “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.” CE Resource, 

Inc. v. Magellan Group, LLC, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D.Cal. 2009) (citing 

Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, 2009 WL 89141, at *1 (E.D.Cal. 2009)). 

Grady contends there are two reasons it seeks to withdraw as Plaintiff’s counsel. 

First, it contends Plaintiff “has refused to follow attorney’s advice on a material matter” 

Case 3:16-cv-02357-W-KSC Document 22 Filed 12/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

16-CV-2357 W (KSC)

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

and under the “attorney-client agreement, this refusal is good cause for the granting of a 

motion to withdraw.” (P&A [Doc. 13] 2:14–16.) Second, Grady contends Plaintiff has 

failed to pay his attorney’s fees as required under the attorney-client agreement, and 

“currently owes the firm $17,244.00 in unpaid, past due fees and required retainer 

replenishment.” (Id. 2:21–23; Grady Decl. [Doc. 13-1] ¶ 8.) Under California Rule of 

Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(f), Plaintiff’s failure to pay attorney’s fees is a 

sufficient basis for granting Attorney’s motion to withdraw. See UMG Recordings, Inc. 

v Music Group, Inc., 2008 WL 11287018 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (citing People v. Prince, 268 

Cal.App.2d 398, 407 (1968)).

Additionally, there is nothing in the record suggesting that Grady’s withdrawal will 

prejudice the litigants in this matter, will harm the administration of justice or unduly 

delay the resolution of this case. Grady represents that the matter is nearing the end of 

discovery, and that a substantial amount of discovery has been completed. (Grady Decl.

¶ 12.) Aside from this motion, there are currently no pending motions on the docket, and

the pretrial conference is not scheduled until August 6, 2018. (Id.; Sched. Order [Doc. 9] 

¶ 17.) Grady has also notified and served a copy of this motion on Plaintiff (Grady Decl.

¶ 11; Cert. of Service [Doc. 13-3]) and the Defendant has filed a statement of nonopposition (Non-Opp’n [Doc. 19]). 

For all these reasons, the Court GRANTS Grady’s motion to withdraw as attorney 

of record for Plaintiff Richard Valentine [Doc. 13]. Grady is ORDERED to serve a copy 

of this order on Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02357-W-KSC Document 22 Filed 12/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2