Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00462/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00462-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332fr Diversity-Fraud

---

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

KERRY BOULTON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv462-GPC(RBB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL BY T.

STEVEN GREGOR AND GREGOR

LAW OFFICES 

[Dkt. No. 19.]

vs.

AMERICAN TRANSFER

SERVICES, INC., a Delaware

corporation ; RUBEN SANCHEZ, an

individual; ANA GUERRA DE

SANCHEZ, an individual; and DOES

1-50, inclusive

Defendants.

Before the Court is defense counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel for

Defendants American Transfer Services, Inc., Ruben Sanchez and Ana Guerra de

Sanchez. (Dkt. No. 19.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on August 21, 2015. (Dkt. No.

22.) The Court finds the matter suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to

Civil LocalRule 7.1(d)(1). Based on the reasoning below, the Court GRANTS defense

counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel. 

Background

On March 2, 2015, Plaintiff Kerry Boulton (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against

Defendants American Transfer Services, Inc. (“ATSI”), Ruben Sanchez (“Mr.

Sanchez”), and his wife, Ana Guerra De Sanchez (“Mrs. Sanchez”) alleging four state

law causes of action for fraud, conversion, violation of California Penal Code section

- 1 - [15cv462-GPC(RBB)]

Case 3:15-cv-00462-GPC-RBB Document 24 Filed 09/01/15 Page 1 of 5
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

496, and money had and received. (Dkt. No. 1.) On May 5, 2015, the Court granted

Defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 8. ) On May 18, 2015,

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendants ATSI, Mr. Sanchez, and

Mrs. Sanchez, alleging eight state law causes of action for intentional and negligent

misrepresentation, violation of California Business and Professions Code section

17200, negligence, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and

conspiracy. (Dkt. No. 11.) On July 21, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' motion

to dismiss all claims against Mrs. Sanchez and denied Defendants' motion to dismiss

Plaintiff's claims for violation of California Business and Professions Code section

17200 and breach of fiduciary duty against Mr. Sanchez and ATSI. Defendants filed

an answer on August 5, 2015. (Dkt. No. 17.) On August 5, 2015, Defendants filed an

answer. (Dkt. No. 18.) On the same day, defense counsel filed its motion to withdraw

as counsel for Defendants. (Dkt. Nos. 19.) 

Discussion

T. Steven Gregor and Gregor Law Offices (“Gregor Law Offices”), counsel of

record for Defendants ATSI, Mr. Sanchez, and Mrs. Sanchez, move to withdraw as

counsel because Defendants have made it unreasonably difficult for Gregor Law

Officesto carry out its employment and effectively represent Defendants; no party will

be prejudiced by the withdrawal; it will not cause harm to the administration of justice;

and withdrawal will not delay resolution of the case. (Dkt. No. 19.) Plaintiff filed an

opposition arguing she will be prejudiced if counsel is allowed to withdraw since the

likelihood of reaching a resolution will be drastically reduced. Moreover, the case will

have to be stayed while Defendant ATSI obtains counsel and because Mr. Sanchez is

not cooperating with his attorney, he is “essentially judgement proof” and will unlikely

obtain new counsel. 

“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). The trial court has

discretion whether to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw in a civil case. 

- 2 - [15cv462-GPC(RBB)]

Case 3:15-cv-00462-GPC-RBB Document 24 Filed 09/01/15 Page 2 of 5
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

See La Grand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998); Stewart v. Boeing Co.,

No. CV 12-5621 RSWL(AGRx), 2013 WL 3168269, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2013). 

Courts should consider the following factors when ruling upon a motion to withdraw

as counsel: (1) the reasons why withdrawal issought; (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. 

Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc., No. C12-0991JLR, 2014 WL 556010, at *4 (W.D.

Wash. Feb. 12, 2014); Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. C09-01643 SBA, 2010

WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010). Rule 3-700 of the California Rules of

Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California provides that an attorney may

request a withdrawal if it is unreasonably difficult for counsel to carry out his

employment effectively. Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(d). Failure to pay attorney’s

fees can be grounds for withdrawal. Indymac Federal Bank, FSB v. McComic, No.

08cv1871-IEG(WVG), 2010 WL 2000013, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 18, 2010); Cal. R.

Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(f). Local Civil Rule 83.3(f)(3) also provides: 

Withdrawals. (a) A notice of motion to withdraw as attorney of record

must be served on the adverse party and on the moving attorney's

client. (b) A declaration pertaining to such service must be filed. 

Failure to make service as required by this section or to file the

required declaration of service will result in a denial of the motion.

Local Civil R. 83.3(f)(3). Here, defense counsel has filed a declaration of service

which indicates that the motion was served on his client and to opposing counsel. 

(Dkt. Nos. 19-2, 19-3.) 

Defense counsel states that Defendants executed a standard fee agreement

(“Agreement”) which required Defendants to keep their attorney informed of

developments, abide by the Agreement, pay attorney’s bills on time, and keep attorney

advised of client’s address and telephone number. (Dkt. No. 19-2, Gregor Decl. ¶ 4.) 

The Agreement also provides that the attorney may withdraw at any time with the

client’s consent or for good cause. (Id. ¶ 5.) Defense counsel’s last communication

with Mr. Sanchez was April 27, 2015 via email, which was their normal means of

- 3 - [15cv462-GPC(RBB)]

Case 3:15-cv-00462-GPC-RBB Document 24 Filed 09/01/15 Page 3 of 5
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

communicating. (Id. ¶ 6.) Since then, he sent emails to Mr. Sanchez on May 19, 27,

and 29, June 5, 8, and 19, and July 9, and 21, 2015 requesting that he be contacted. 

(Id.) Defense counsel attempted to call Mr. Sanchez on July 21, 2015 and discovered

that his phone number was no longer a working number. (Id.) On July 22, 2015,

defense counsel sent Mr. and Mrs. Sanchez a letter, and an email on August 3, 2015

informing them that he would be withdrawing as counsel. (Id.) Attorney Gregor has

not received any response from Mr. or Mrs. Sanchez to his emails or to his letter. (Id.) 

In addition, Mr. and Mrs. Sanchez have not paid their bills on time and have, on at least

one occasion, paid counsel by check that was returned for insufficient funds. (Id. ¶ 9.) 

Due to Defendants’ lack of communication with the Gregor Law Offices and not

paying their bills on time, it has been unreasonably difficult for Gregor Law Offices to

carry out its employment and effectively represent its clients in this matter. (Id.) 

The Court concludes that defense counsel has demonstrated good cause to be

relieved as counsel. The Court also concludes that the withdrawal will not prejudice

the plaintiff, harm the administration of justice or delay resolution of the case. The

case was filed on March 2, 2015, (Dkt. No. 1), and an answer was recently filed on

August 4, 2015. (Dkt. No. 18.) In addition, no dates have been set in this case. 

The Court acknowledges Plaintiff’s concerns; however, even if defense counsel

was not relieved as counsel, a resolution of this case would still be difficult and any

prejudice she asserts would still remain as Defendants have not cooperated with

defense counsel in defending this case. 

Based on the above, the Court GRANTS defense counsel’s motion to withdraw 

as counsel for Defendants. While Defendant Ruben Sanchez, an individual, may

proceed pro se, Defendant ATSI, a corporation may not proceed without counsel. See

United States v. High Country Broadcasting Co. Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir.

1993); see also C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697-98 (9th Cir.

1987); Civil Local Rule 83.3k (“all other parties, including corporations; partnerships

and other legal entities may appear in court only through an attorney permitted to

- 4 - [15cv462-GPC(RBB)]

Case 3:15-cv-00462-GPC-RBB Document 24 Filed 09/01/15 Page 4 of 5
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

practice pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3.”). Therefore, the Court grants ATSI 30

days to obtain substitute counsel and have counsel file a notice of appearance. ATSI

is notified that if it fails to obtain new counsel and have counsel file a notice of

appearance, it may be subject to default proceedings. See High Country Broadcasting

Co., Inc., 3 F.3d at 1245. Mr. Sanchez must notify the court of his currently mailing

address within 30 days from the date of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 1, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

cc: Ruben Sanchez, Ana Guerra De Sanchez, 

and American Transfer Services, Inc.

2791 Silver Oak Court

Chula Vista, CA 91914

- 5 - [15cv462-GPC(RBB)]

Case 3:15-cv-00462-GPC-RBB Document 24 Filed 09/01/15 Page 5 of 5