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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Radford,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Berg Homes LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-00287-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney 

without client consent. (Doc. 52.)

Ninth Circuit law suggests a “justifiable cause” standard applies when, as here, the 

client does not affirmatively consent to the withdrawal request. Lovvorn v. Johnston, 118 

F.2d 704, 706 (9th Cir. 1941) (“An attorney may not, in the absence of the client’s 

consent, withdraw from a case without justifiable cause; and then only after proper notice 

to his client, and on leave of the court.”). “Justifiable cause” is not a terribly demanding 

standard, and the professional considerations listed in ER 1.16 will often satisfy it, so 

long as other factors don’t outweigh those considerations. Gagan v. Monroe, 2013 WL 

1339935, *4 (D. Ariz. 2013) (“Factors that a district court should consider when ruling 

upon a motion to withdraw as counsel include: (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.”).

Case 2:18-cv-00287-DWL Document 54 Filed 06/23/20 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

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

Plaintiff has failed to respond to his counsel’s attempts to communicate, and he 

has failed to respond to their motion to withdraw as counsel. Any prejudice to him is of 

his own making. Furthermore, withdrawal will not harm the administration of justice or 

greatly delay resolution of this case. Justifiable cause supports Plaintiff’s counsel’s 

withdrawal request, which will be granted.

Failure to communicate with counsel for weeks is unusual behavior from a

litigant, and this is particularly troubling as this case is nearing trial—the Final Pretrial 

Conference is set for August 24, 2020. (Doc. 51.) To ensure that this case remains on 

track, Plaintiff will be required to file a notice of participation, indicating an intention to 

proceed with this case. If Plaintiff fails to file this notice, the case will be dismissed for 

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with this order.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to withdraw (Doc. 52) is granted. Jason Barrat, 

Michael Zoldan, Jessica Miller, James Weiler and the Zoldan Law Group, PLLC are 

withdrawn as counsel for Plaintiff John Radford in the above-referenced matter.

IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that all future notices in this matter be directed 

to

Plaintiff at:

John Radford

10803 W. Ruth Ave.

Peoria, AZ 85345

and

John Radford

1910 Wellesley Blvd. Apt 204

Indianapolis, IN 46219.

IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a notice of participation, 

indicating an intention to proceed with this case, by July 7, 2020.

...

Case 2:18-cv-00287-DWL Document 54 Filed 06/23/20 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

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

IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to file a notice of 

participation by July 7, 2020, the Clerk of Court shall dismiss this case without further 

notice.

Dated this 23rd day of June, 2020.

Case 2:18-cv-00287-DWL Document 54 Filed 06/23/20 Page 3 of 3