Aspalathos Investments, LLC v. John Does 1–10, including John Doe, the current owner, operator, or controller of Ethereum wallet address 0xf70da97812CB96acDF810712Aa562db8dfA3dbEF

S.D. California

Aspalathos Investments, LLC v. John Does 1–10, including John Doe, the current owner, operator, or controller of Ethereum wallet address 0xf70da97812CB96acDF810712Aa562db8dfA3dbEF

DecidedNovember 24, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-01320

StatusUnknown

This text of Aspalathos Investments, LLC v. John Does 1–10, including John Doe, the current owner, operator, or controller of Ethereum wallet address 0xf70da97812CB96acDF810712Aa562db8dfA3dbEF (Aspalathos Investments, LLC v. John Does 1–10, including John Doe, the current owner, operator, or controller of Ethereum wallet address 0xf70da97812CB96acDF810712Aa562db8dfA3dbEF) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aspalathos Investments, LLC v. John Does 1–10, including John Doe, the current owner, operator, or controller of Ethereum wallet address 0xf70da97812CB96acDF810712Aa562db8dfA3dbEF, (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ASPALATHOS INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No.: 25-cv-01320-GPC-DEB

12 Plaintiff, Order GRANTING Plaintiff’s 13 v. Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel 14 JOHN DOES 1–10, including JOHN

DOE, the current owner, operator, or 15 [ECF No. 57] controller of Ethereum wallet address 16 0xf70da97812CB96acDF810712Aa562d b8dfA3dbEF, 17 Defendants. 18

19 Before the Court is Emilio A. Cazares of Turner & Associates, P.A.’s motion to 20 withdraw as Plaintiff Aspalathos Investments, LLC’s counsel. ECF No. 57. Defendants 21 were given until November 21, 2025, to file a response in opposition to the motion, and 22 they have not done so. Third Party Circle filed notice of non-opposition to the motion. ECF 23 No. 60. The Court has thus considered Plaintiff’s counsel’s unopposed motion and 24 GRANTS the motion to withdraw. The Court further ORDERS Plaintiff to obtain new 25 counsel and for that counsel to file an appearance in this case no later than December 15, 26 2025. 27 1 BACKGROUND 2 On November 7, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. 3 ECF No. 57. In the motion, Plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court that Plaintiff wishes to 4 obtain different representation, and the motion is accompanied by Plaintiff’s written 5 consent. ECF No. 57-1, ¶¶ 2, 3. Counsel avers that he has provided Plaintiff with notice 6 of the motion, and that he has taken steps to avoid prejudice to Plaintiff, including “advising 7 the Plaintiff of the need to promptly obtain new counsel, taking measures to stay existing 8 deadlines, offering to transfer the client’s file, and agreeing to reasonable cooperation with 9 Plaintiff’s new counsel of choice.” Id ¶ 6. Plaintiff is currently undertaking the 10 responsibility of locating and engaging new counsel. Id. ¶ 2. 11 Neither Defendants—who have not appeared in this case—nor Third Party Circle 12 have opposed Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion. See ECF No. 60. 13 LEGAL STANDARD 14 “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” Darby v. City 15 of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992). The trial court has discretion whether 16 to grant or deny an attorney's motion to withdraw in a civil case. See La Grand v. Stewart, 17 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998); Stewart v. Boeing Co., No. CV 12-5621 18 RSWL(AGRx), 2013 WL 3168269, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2013). Local Rule 83.3(f)(3) 19 requires an attorney to serve any motion to withdraw on the adverse party and his client 20 and to file a declaration pertaining to such service.1 21 California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16 states that “a lawyer may withdraw 22 from representing a client if . . . the client knowingly and freely assents to termination of 23 the representation.” CA ST RPC Rule 1.16. Even so, consent of the client is not 24 dispositive. Robinson v. Delgado, No. CV 02-1538 NJV, 2010 WL 3259384, at *2 (N.D. 25

26 1 Plaintiff’s counsel has complied with these requirements. See ECF No. 57-1, ¶ 9. 27 1 Cal. Aug. 18, 2010). A court must also consider: (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; 2 (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might 3 cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay 4 the resolution of the case. Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc., No. C12-0991JLR, 2014 WL 5 556010, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 12, 2014); Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. C09 6 01643 SBA, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010). This district’s Local 7 Rules also require that corporations “may appear in court only through an attorney.” 8 CivLR 83.3(j). 9 DISCUSSION 10 Here, good cause for withdrawal exists because Plaintiff has knowingly and freely 11 assented to termination of the employment. See ECF No. 57-1, at 5-6; CA ST RPC Rule 12 1.16. Indeed, Plaintiff has indicated a desire to terminate its relationship with counsel and 13 seek new representation. ECF No. 57-1 ¶ 2. 14 Further, the withdrawal of Plaintiff’s counsel would not unduly prejudice the parties, 15 harm the administration of justice, or unduly delay the resolution of this case. See In re 16 Saber, No. 21-55913, 2022 WL 11592836, at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022). Plaintiff is not 17 prejudiced, as it has initiated and consented to the withdrawal. ECF No. 57-1, at 5-6. 18 Additionally, withdrawal will not prejudice Defendants—who have not appeared in this 19 action and have, therefore, developed no working relationship with Plaintiff’s counsel— 20 nor Third Party Circle—which has cooperated with Plaintiff’s counsel to extend deadlines 21 allowing Plaintiff to acquire new counsel and filed a notice of non-opposition to counsel’s 22 motion to withdraw. ECF No. 60. Nor will withdrawal of Plaintiff’s counsel hinder the 23 administration of justice, as Plaintiff—the party in this case entitled to recovery—has 24 determined that its interests are better served by new counsel. The Court will not dispute 25 Plaintiff’s determination. 26 27 1 As to delay, Plaintiff’s counsel has indicated that Plaintiff has already begun the 2 process of identifying new counsel and that Plaintiff has been advised to do so promptly. 3 ECF No. 57-1, ¶¶ 2, 6. Third Party Circle has also consented to an extension of existing 4 deadlines to accommodate for Plaintiff’s acquisition of new counsel. Id. ¶ 7. Thus, 5 Plaintiff’s counsel’s withdrawal will not result in undue delay. 6 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as 7 counsel. 8 However, Plaintiff’s counsel’s withdrawal will leave Plaintiff, a corporation, 9 without counsel. Under Local Rule 83.3(j), a corporate party must be represented by 10 counsel and cannot appear pro se. See In re Am. West Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th 11 Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (“Corporations and other unincorporated associations must appear 12 in court through an attorney.”). Thus, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to obtain substitute 13 counsel and have its new counsel file a notice of appearance in this action as soon as 14 practicable and no later than 21 days from now, December 15, 2025. 15 The Court cautions Plaintiff that failure to comply with this Order and obtain new 16 counsel may result in the termination of this action. See, e.g., AmNet ESOP Corp. v. 17 CrossCountry Mortg., Inc., No. 24-CV-0970-MMA-KSC, 2024 WL 5036653, at *2 (S.D. 18 Cal. Aug. 9, 2024) Fed. Sols. Grp., Inc. v. H2L1-CSC, JV, No. 4:17-CV-05433-KAW, 2019 19 WL 4918256, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2019). 20 CONCLUSION 21 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to 22 withdraw and ORDERS Plaintiff to obtain substitute counsel and for such counsel to file 23 an appearance in this case within 21 days of this Order, by December 15, 2025. The Court 24 vacates the hearing previously scheduled for December 5, 2025. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 1 Dated: November 24, 2025 2 sale Ok 2 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 3 United States District Judge 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 25-cv-01320-GPC-DEB

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ASPALATHOS INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No.: 25-cv-01320-GPC-DEB

12 Plaintiff, Order GRANTING Plaintiff’s 13 v. Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel 14 JOHN DOES 1–10, including JOHN

DOE, the current owner, operator, or 15 [ECF No. 57] controller of Ethereum wallet address 16 0xf70da97812CB96acDF810712Aa562d b8dfA3dbEF, 17 Defendants. 18

19 Before the Court is Emilio A. Cazares of Turner & Associates, P.A.’s motion to 20 withdraw as Plaintiff Aspalathos Investments, LLC’s counsel. ECF No. 57. Defendants 21 were given until November 21, 2025, to file a response in opposition to the motion, and 22 they have not done so. Third Party Circle filed notice of non-opposition to the motion. ECF 23 No. 60. The Court has thus considered Plaintiff’s counsel’s unopposed motion and 24 GRANTS the motion to withdraw. The Court further ORDERS Plaintiff to obtain new 25 counsel and for that counsel to file an appearance in this case no later than December 15, 26 2025. 27 1 BACKGROUND 2 On November 7, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. 3 ECF No. 57. In the motion, Plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court that Plaintiff wishes to 4 obtain different representation, and the motion is accompanied by Plaintiff’s written 5 consent. ECF No. 57-1, ¶¶ 2, 3. Counsel avers that he has provided Plaintiff with notice 6 of the motion, and that he has taken steps to avoid prejudice to Plaintiff, including “advising 7 the Plaintiff of the need to promptly obtain new counsel, taking measures to stay existing 8 deadlines, offering to transfer the client’s file, and agreeing to reasonable cooperation with 9 Plaintiff’s new counsel of choice.” Id ¶ 6. Plaintiff is currently undertaking the 10 responsibility of locating and engaging new counsel. Id. ¶ 2. 11 Neither Defendants—who have not appeared in this case—nor Third Party Circle 12 have opposed Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion. See ECF No. 60. 13 LEGAL STANDARD 14 “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” Darby v. City 15 of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992). The trial court has discretion whether 16 to grant or deny an attorney's motion to withdraw in a civil case. See La Grand v. Stewart, 17 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998); Stewart v. Boeing Co., No. CV 12-5621 18 RSWL(AGRx), 2013 WL 3168269, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2013). Local Rule 83.3(f)(3) 19 requires an attorney to serve any motion to withdraw on the adverse party and his client 20 and to file a declaration pertaining to such service.1 21 California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16 states that “a lawyer may withdraw 22 from representing a client if . . . the client knowingly and freely assents to termination of 23 the representation.” CA ST RPC Rule 1.16. Even so, consent of the client is not 24 dispositive. Robinson v. Delgado, No. CV 02-1538 NJV, 2010 WL 3259384, at *2 (N.D. 25

26 1 Plaintiff’s counsel has complied with these requirements. See ECF No. 57-1, ¶ 9. 27 1 Cal. Aug. 18, 2010). A court must also consider: (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; 2 (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might 3 cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay 4 the resolution of the case. Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc., No. C12-0991JLR, 2014 WL 5 556010, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 12, 2014); Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. C09 6 01643 SBA, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010). This district’s Local 7 Rules also require that corporations “may appear in court only through an attorney.” 8 CivLR 83.3(j). 9 DISCUSSION 10 Here, good cause for withdrawal exists because Plaintiff has knowingly and freely 11 assented to termination of the employment. See ECF No. 57-1, at 5-6; CA ST RPC Rule 12 1.16. Indeed, Plaintiff has indicated a desire to terminate its relationship with counsel and 13 seek new representation. ECF No. 57-1 ¶ 2. 14 Further, the withdrawal of Plaintiff’s counsel would not unduly prejudice the parties, 15 harm the administration of justice, or unduly delay the resolution of this case. See In re 16 Saber, No. 21-55913, 2022 WL 11592836, at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022). Plaintiff is not 17 prejudiced, as it has initiated and consented to the withdrawal. ECF No. 57-1, at 5-6. 18 Additionally, withdrawal will not prejudice Defendants—who have not appeared in this 19 action and have, therefore, developed no working relationship with Plaintiff’s counsel— 20 nor Third Party Circle—which has cooperated with Plaintiff’s counsel to extend deadlines 21 allowing Plaintiff to acquire new counsel and filed a notice of non-opposition to counsel’s 22 motion to withdraw. ECF No. 60. Nor will withdrawal of Plaintiff’s counsel hinder the 23 administration of justice, as Plaintiff—the party in this case entitled to recovery—has 24 determined that its interests are better served by new counsel. The Court will not dispute 25 Plaintiff’s determination. 26 27 1 As to delay, Plaintiff’s counsel has indicated that Plaintiff has already begun the 2 process of identifying new counsel and that Plaintiff has been advised to do so promptly. 3 ECF No. 57-1, ¶¶ 2, 6. Third Party Circle has also consented to an extension of existing 4 deadlines to accommodate for Plaintiff’s acquisition of new counsel. Id. ¶ 7. Thus, 5 Plaintiff’s counsel’s withdrawal will not result in undue delay. 6 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as 7 counsel. 8 However, Plaintiff’s counsel’s withdrawal will leave Plaintiff, a corporation, 9 without counsel. Under Local Rule 83.3(j), a corporate party must be represented by 10 counsel and cannot appear pro se. See In re Am. West Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th 11 Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (“Corporations and other unincorporated associations must appear 12 in court through an attorney.”). Thus, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to obtain substitute 13 counsel and have its new counsel file a notice of appearance in this action as soon as 14 practicable and no later than 21 days from now, December 15, 2025. 15 The Court cautions Plaintiff that failure to comply with this Order and obtain new 16 counsel may result in the termination of this action. See, e.g., AmNet ESOP Corp. v. 17 CrossCountry Mortg., Inc., No. 24-CV-0970-MMA-KSC, 2024 WL 5036653, at *2 (S.D. 18 Cal. Aug. 9, 2024) Fed. Sols. Grp., Inc. v. H2L1-CSC, JV, No. 4:17-CV-05433-KAW, 2019 19 WL 4918256, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2019). 20 CONCLUSION 21 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to 22 withdraw and ORDERS Plaintiff to obtain substitute counsel and for such counsel to file 23 an appearance in this case within 21 days of this Order, by December 15, 2025. The Court 24 vacates the hearing previously scheduled for December 5, 2025. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 1 Dated: November 24, 2025 2 sale Ok 2 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 3 United States District Judge 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 25-cv-01320-GPC-DEB

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Aspalathos Investments, LLC v. John Does 1–10, including John Doe, the current owner, operator, or controller of Ethereum wallet address 0xf70da97812CB96acDF810712Aa562db8dfA3dbEF, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aspalathos-investments-llc-v-john-does-110-including-john-doe-the-casd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack