Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00927/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00927-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 

---

1

16-CV-0927 W (NLS)

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

PAUL CHAU,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONWIDE INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-CV-0927 W (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEYS’ 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS 

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Attorney Elliott N. Kanter and the Law Office of Elliott N. Kanter (collectively 

“Attorneys”) have filed a motion to withdraw as attorney of record for Plaintiff Paul 

Chau. 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)). 

Case 3:16-cv-00927-W-NLS Document 48 Filed 08/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

16-CV-0927 W (NLS)

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

Attorneys contend that irreconcilable differences have arisen during this case, 

which has made it “virtually impossible to properly represent Mr. Chau.” (Mot. [Doc. 

30] 2:7–10.) Additionally, Attorneys contend “Mr. Chau has made promises as to 

compensation for his attorney costs and fees, which have not been fulfilled.” (Id. 2:11–

12.) Mr. Chau’s failure to pay the attorneys’ fees is a sufficient ground to justify 

withdrawal. See, CA ST RPC Rule 3-700(B)(f).

Additionally, there is nothing in the record suggesting that Attorneys’ withdrawal 

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

delay the resolution of this case. Attorneys have notified and served a copy of this 

motion on Mr. Chau, who was aware of the deadline for filing his opposition. (Kanter 

Decl. [Doc. 46] ¶¶ 2–6.) The motion was also served on the Defendant. (Cert. of Service

[Doc. 30-2].) To date, no opposition to the motion has been filed. 

For all these reasons, the Court GRANTS Attorney Elliott N. Kanter and the Law 

Office of Elliott N. Kanter’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record for Plaintiff Paul 

Chau [Doc. 30]. Attorneys’ are ORDERED to provide a copy of this order to Plaintiff, 

who shall provide the Court with an address on or before August 18, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-00927-W-NLS Document 48 Filed 08/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2