Fernandez v. Progressive Management Systems

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 27, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00841
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HECTOR FERNANDEZ, individually ) Case No.: 3:21-cv-00841-BEN-WVG and on behalf of all others similarly ) 12 situated, ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 ) WITHDRAW APPEARANCE OF Plaintiff, ) COUNSEL 14 v. ) 15 ) [ECF No. 32] PROGRESSIVE MANAGEMENT ) 16 SYSTEMS; EMERGENCY AND ) ACUTE CARE MEDICAL CORP., 17 ) Defendant. ) 18 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 Plaintiff HECTOR FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others 21 similarly situated, (“Plaintiff”) brings this action, alleging violation of various fair debt 22 collection laws against Defendant R.M. GALICIA, INC., a California corporation doing 23 business as PROGRESSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (“PMS”), and EMERGENCY 24 AND ACUTE CARE MEDICAL CORP., a California corporation (“EACMC”) 25 (collectively, “Defendants”). ECF No. 1. 26 On January 21, 2022, Ben Travis, counsel for Plaintiff, filed the instant Motion to 27 Withdraw Appearance of Counsel. ECF No. 32. Mr. Travis advises that Plaintiff will 28 1 continue to be represented by other counsel from Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & 2 Zeldes, LLP, and as such, will not be prejudiced. Id. at 2. Mr. Travis seeks to withdraw 3 his appearance of counsel because he is departing the firm. Declaration of Ben Travis in 4 Support of Motion to Withdraw, ECF No. 32-1 (“Travis Decl.”) at 2, ¶ 2. His declaration 5 states that a copy of this motion was served on Plaintiff, via electronic mail. Id. at 2, ¶ 7. 6 For the reasons set for below, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Withdraw. 7 II. LEGAL STANDARD 8 An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court, permitting the 9 party to either appear on the party’s own behalf or substitute other counsel in as counsel 10 of record. S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 83.3(f); see also P.I.C. Int’l, Inc. v. Gooper Hermetic, Ltd., 11 No. 3:19-CV-00734-BEN-LL, 2020 WL 2992194, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Under 12 the Local Rules, “[o]nly natural persons representing their individual interests in propria 13 persona may appear in court without representation by an attorney permitted to practice 14 pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3.” S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 83.3(j). 15 A motion to withdraw must (1) be served on the adverse party and moving 16 attorney’s client and (2) include a declaration regarding service of the motion on those 17 parties. S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 83.3(f)(3). “Failure to . . . file the required declaration of service 18 will result in a denial of the motion.” S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 83.3(f)(3)(b). California law 19 governs issues of ethics and professional responsibility in federal courts. See, e.g., 20 Radcliffe v. Hernandez, 818 F.3d 537, 541 (9th Cir. 2016) (“California law governs 21 questions of conflicts of interest and disqualification”); see generally RESTATEMENT 22 (THIRD) OF THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS § 1 cmt. b (2000) (“Federal district 23 courts generally have adopted the lawyer code of the jurisdiction in which the court sits, 24 and all federal courts exercise the power to regulate lawyers appearing before them.”); 25 but see Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington Cty., Oregon v. Jelco, Inc., 646 F.2d 26 1339, 1342 n.1 (9th Cir. 1981) (“We express no opinion on the law to apply where the 27 district court has not designated the applicable rules of professional responsibility (e.g., 28 state law, the Model Code of Professional Responsibility, or a federal common law of | professional responsibility).”). Under Rule 1.16 of California’s Rules of Professional 2 Conduct, effective June 20, 2020, subdivision (a) governs mandatory withdrawal while 3 || subdivision (b) governs permissive withdrawal. 4 “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 6 || harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; (4) the degree to which 7 || withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Garrett v. Ruiz, No. 11-CV-2540-IEG- 8 WVG, 2013 WL 163420 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013) (quoting Leatt Corp. v. Innovative ? Safety Tech., LLC, Case No. 09-CV-1301-IEG-POR, 2010 WL 444708, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 10 || Feb. 2, 2010)). 1] DISCUSSION 12 In the present case, Mr. Travis seeks permissive withdrawal because he is departing 13 || the law firm that represents Plaintiff. Travis Decl. at 2, 2. Mr. Travis submitted the 14 || declaration required by the Local Rules attesting to service on his client and the parties. IS at 2, {| 6-7. Because Plaintiff will continue to be represented by other members of the 16 firm, Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes, LLP, Plaintiff will suffer no prejudice 17 by the Court granting this request. 18 CONCLUSION 19 For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion as follows: 20 1. Ben Travis’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record is GRANTED. 21 2. The Clerk of Court shall update the docket to reflect the withdrawal of Mr. Travis, 22 ||as counsel of record for Plaintiff. 23 3. Ms. Travis shall immediately serve Plaintiff with a copy of this Order and 24 || thereafter file a proof of service to confirm the same. 2° IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || DATED: January 27, 2022 27 HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ 28 United States District Judge

-3-