Chris Langer v. Banneret, LLC

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: June 4, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01272
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

O 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 Chris Langer, Case No. 2:19-cv-01272-ODW (JEMx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. 13 LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS Banneret, LLC; H & I Foods Inc.; The COUNSEL [81] 14 Small Café, LLC; and Does 1–10, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Michele A. Dobson, counsel for Defendants Banneret, LLC, H & I Foods, Inc., 19 and The Small Café, LLC seeks to withdraw as counsel of record as to only Defendant 20 Banneret, LLC (“Banneret”). (Mot. to Withdraw, ECF No. 81.)1 Local Rule 83-2.3.2 21 requires an attorney to obtain leave from the Court to withdraw as counsel. 22 California’s Rules of Professional Conduct generally govern an attorney’s conduct 23 before this Court, including circumstances permitting withdrawal. See L.R. 83-2.3.2. 24 A district court has discretion to permit or deny an attorney’s withdrawal. 25 Huntington Learning Ctrs., Inc. v. Educ. Gateway, Inc., No. 2:09-cv-3200 PSG 26 (VBKx), 2009 WL 2337863, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2009). Courts consider four 27 1 After carefully considering the papers filed in connection with the motion to withdraw, the Court 28 deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the motion hearing on June 15, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. 1 factors for withdrawal requests: “(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the 2 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 4 delay the resolution of the case.” Id. 5 Ms. Dobson seeks to withdraw under California Rules of Professional 6 Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d) and (f) (now Cal. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.16(b)(4) & (5) (Nov. 1, 7 2018)). She asserts “[t]he Principal for Banneret, LLC . . . will continue either 8 Self-Represented or he will hire new counsel to complete this matter.” (Mot. 2; Decl. 9 of Michele A. Dobson ¶ 2, ECF No. 81-2.) Although the Court acknowledges that 10 permissive withdrawal may be warranted due to Banneret’s refusal to communicate or 11 pay legal fees, Ms. Dobson neglects to acknowledge that Banneret is a business entity 12 that cannot represent itself pro se in federal court. C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.3.2; Rowland 13 v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02 (1993). 14 Nor has she “give[n] written notice to the organization of the consequences of its 15 inability to appear pro se.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.3.4. As no attorney has yet to 16 substitute in for Banneret and Banneret has not been advised of the consequences of 17 its inability to appear pro se, the Court rejects Ms. Dobson’s motion to withdraw. 18 Additionally, the trial in this matter is quickly approaching, with the Pretrial 19 Conference in less than one month and the Trial in less than seven weeks. (See 20 Scheduling and Case Management Order 24, ECF No. 42.) The parties recently 21 stipulated to extend the mediation deadline to June 20, 2020, to facilitate “resol[ution] 22 [of] this case through mediation.” (Stip. 2, ECF No. 88; Order Granting Stip., ECF 23 No. 89.) Permitting withdrawal at this late juncture would disrupt ongoing mediation 24 efforts and result in delay to the impending pretrial and trial dates. 25 Therefore, Ms. Dobson’s motion to withdraw is DENIED. Ms. Dobson may 26 reapply to withdraw as counsel if Banneret acquires substitute counsel, provided 27 withdrawal does not cause unwarranted delay in the resolution of the case. See C.D. 28 1 || Cal. L.R. 83-2.3.5. At that time, Banneret must file a request for approval of 2 || substitution of attorney. 3 4 IT ISSO ORDERED. 5 6 June 4, 2020 7 . Giddli 9 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28