Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02984/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02984-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

13-CV-2984 JLS (AGS)

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

THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN, 

CDCR #H-76785,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. SILVA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 13-CV-2984 JLS (AGS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW

(ECF No. 383)

Presently before the Court is Counsel David J. Zugman’s Motion to Withdraw as 

Counsel. (“MTN,” ECF No. 383.) After considering Mr. Zugman’s arguments and the 

law, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel.

“An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court, 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. 07CV594WQH (NLS), 2008 WL 410694, 

at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008) (alterations, citations, and internal quotation marks 

omitted); see also Civ. L.R. 83.3(g)(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.” Leatt 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 389 Filed 08/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

13-CV-2984 JLS (AGS)

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

Corp. v. Innovative Safety Tech., LLC, No. 09-CV-1301-IEG (POR), 2010 WL 444708, at 

*1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2010) (citing Beard, 2008 WL 410694, at *2).

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

court shall be familiar with and comply with the standards of professional conduct required

of members of the State Bar of California.” Civ. L.R. 83.4(b). In relevant part, California 

Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700 provides:

(A) In General.

(1) If permission for termination of employment is required by 

the rules of a tribunal, a member shall not withdraw from 

employment in a proceeding before that tribunal without its 

permission.

(2) A member shall not withdraw from employment until the 

member has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably 

foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving 

due notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other 

counsel, complying with rule 3-700(D) [concerning the return of 

client papers and property and the refund of any advance fees not 

earned], and complying with applicable laws and rules.

(C) Permissive Withdrawal.

[A] member may not request permission to withdraw in matters 

pending before a tribunal, and may not withdraw in other matters, 

unless such request or such withdrawal is because:

. . .

(5) The client knowingly and freely assents to termination of the 

employment; or

(6) The member believes in good faith, in a proceeding pending 

before a tribunal, that the tribunal will find the existence of 

other good cause for withdrawal.

Pursuant to the Southern District of California’s Civil Local Rules, “[a] notice of motion 

to withdraw as attorney of record must be served on the adverse party and on the moving 

attorney’s client.” Civ. L.R. 83.3(f)(3)(a).

Mr. Zugman seeks to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Thomas Heilman. (MTN 1.) 

He explains that Mr. Heilman has filed motions with the Court arguing that his counsel 

provided him with ineffective assistance and coerced him into signing a settlement 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 389 Filed 08/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

13-CV-2984 JLS (AGS)

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

agreement. (Id.) Mr. Zugman represents that he has served a notice of the motion to 

withdraw as required by Civil Local Rule 83.3(g)(3)(a). (Declaration of David Zugman, 

ECF No. 383-1, at 1–2.) The Court finds that Mr. Zugman has presented valid reasons to 

withdraw. This withdrawal may prejudice Mr. Heilman, but such concerns are tempered 

because he has agreed to settlement terms. (ECF No. 385.) Because the parties have agreed 

to settlement terms, there is minimal likelihood of harm to administration of justice and 

this withdrawal will not delay resolution of the case.

Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Mr. Zugman’s Motion to Withdraw as 

Counsel, (ECF No. 383). The Clerk of Court SHALL update the docket to reflect the 

withdrawal of Mr. Zugman as counsel for Plaintiff in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2018

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 389 Filed 08/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3