Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01720/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01720-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1

3:19-cv-1720-GPC-BGS

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

JOHN MEGGS, Individually,

Plaintiff,

v.

1250 NORTH SD, LLC, a Foreign

Limited Liability Company,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-1720-GPC-BGS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO 

WITHDRAW

(ECF No. 13)

On February 10, 2020, Defendant 1250 North SD, LLC’s counsel, the law firm of 

Jackson DeMarco and its attorneys, filed a motion seeking to withdraw. (ECF No. 13.) 

For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s counsel’s motion.

I. Background

Attached with the February 10, 2020 motion to withdraw as counsel, Defendant 

has included a sworn declaration signed at Attorney M. Alim Malik. (ECF No. 13-1, 

Malik Decl.) Mr. Malik avers that, on February 4, 2020, he was “informed that the 

ownership/membership interests in 1250 North had changed such that the individuals 

from whom [he and his associate, Ms. Brittany Ortiz] had been receiving instructions 

Case 3:19-cv-01720-GPC-BGS Document 16 Filed 02/19/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:19-cv-1720-GPC-BGS

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

were no longer able to provide those instructions due to a change in ownership and 

control.” (Id. at ¶ 4.) 

In response, Mr. Malik contacted Mr. Robert Perelman of Ladder Capital, LLC, an 

organization now allegedly in “managerial control” of Defendant. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Mr. Malik 

“informed Ladder that due to a potential conflict of interest, [Malik] and [his] firm are 

unable to continue as counsel of record.” (Id. at ¶¶ 4, 6.) Mr. Malik expects that Ladder 

will be selecting new counsel on behalf of Defendant in the “near future.” (Id. at ¶ 8.) Mr. 

Malik also spoke with Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Donald MacKay, who does not object to 

the withdrawal of Defendant’s counsel. (Id. at ¶¶ 9–11.) 

II. Legal Standard

An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court, Kassab v. San 

Diego Police Dep’t, No. 07-CV-1071-WQH, 2008 WL 251935, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 

2008), and the 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. 07-CV-594-WQH, 

2008 WL 410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008). Additionally, under local rules, an 

attorney must serve notice of its motion to withdraw on the adverse party as well as on 

the moving party's client with a declaration of service. CIV. LR. 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 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.” Garrett v. Ruiz, No. 11-CV-2540-IEG, 

2013 WL 163420, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013) (quoting Leatt Corp. v. Innovative 

Safety Technology, LLC, 2010 WL 444708, at * 1 (S.D. Cal. Feb.2, 2010). There is no 

danger of prejudice where a “case is still in its infancy,” “there are no immediately 

scheduled hearings,” and the opposing party receives “notice of [counsel’s] intent to 

withdraw.” Gurvey v. Legend Films, Inc., No. 09-CV-942-IEG, 2010 WL 2756944, at *1 

(S.D. Cal. July 12, 2010). In addition, the local rules of this district incorporate “the 

Case 3:19-cv-01720-GPC-BGS Document 16 Filed 02/19/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:19-cv-1720-GPC-BGS

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

standards of professional conduct required by members of the State bar of California,” 

CIV. LR. 83.4(b), which in turn state that counsel is not to withdraw without taking 

“reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, 

including giving due notice to the client [and] allowing time for employment of other 

counsel.” Skazzi3 Capital Ltd. v. Pathway Genomics Corp., No. 3:18-CV-00317-BEN, 

2019 WL 6878871, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2019) (quoting Cal. R. of Prof. Conduct 3-

700(A)(2)).

The balance of these factors changes, in part, with respect to corporate Defendants 

as only “natural persons representing their individual interests in propria persona may 

appear in court without representation by an attorney . . . All other parties, including 

corporations, partnerships and other legal entities, may appear in court only through an 

attorney permitted to practice.” CIV. LR. 83.3(k); see also Laskowitz v. Shellenberger, 

107 F. Supp. 397, 398 (S.D. Cal. 1952) (“Since a corporation cannot practice law, and

can only act through the agency of natural persons, it follows that it can appear in court 

on its own behalf only through a licensed attorney. It cannot appear by an officer of the 

corporation who is not an attorney, and may not even file a complaint except by an 

attorney, whose authority to appear is presumed; in other words, a corporation cannot 

appear in propria persona.”)

III. Analysis

Here, Defendant has presented adequate reason to discharge counsel, namely, the 

existence of a potential conflict of interest. (ECF No. 13 at 2; ECF No. 13-1, Malik Decl. 

at ¶ 7.) Counsel, moreover, has obtained the permission of Defendant and their new 

ownership. (ECF No. 13-1, Malik Decl. at ¶¶ 6–8.) Counsel has also provided adequate 

notice of his withdrawal to Plaintiff through a phone conversation and the instant motion 

and has obtained Plaintiff’s consent to withdraw. (Id. at ¶¶ 9–11.) Lastly, on February 18, 

2020, Lindsay L. Ryan of the firm of Polsinelli LLP entered an appearance as substitute 

counsel for Defendant. (ECF No. 15.) Thus, the Court finds that counsel’s withdrawal 

Case 3:19-cv-01720-GPC-BGS Document 16 Filed 02/19/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:19-cv-1720-GPC-BGS

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

will not unduly prejudice or delay the instant litigation, and results from a permissible 

reason. See Garrett, 2013 WL 163420, at *2. 

The Court thus GRANTS the instant motion.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that:

1. Defendant counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED;

2. The Clerk of Court SHALL update the docket to reflect the withdrawal of Mr. 

M. Alik Malik and his law firm as counsel for Defendant 1250 North SD, LLC;

3. The Clerk of Court SHALL update the docket to reflect the general appearance

of Polsinelli LLP as counsel of record for the Defendant; and

4. Defendant’s Counsel, Mr. M Alim Malik, SHALL immediately serve all parties

with a copy of this Order and then file a proof of service to confirm service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01720-GPC-BGS Document 16 Filed 02/19/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4