Ghusar v. Park 'N Shade of Tucson, Inc.

Opinion

DAVID GHUSAR and SANA No. 2:22-cv-00398-TLN-JDP BHUMBLA, Plaintiffs, v. PARK ‘N SHADE OF TUCSON, INC., Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Withdraw filed by Daniel Setareh of Saterah Law, APLC, attorney of record for Plaintiff Sana Bhumbla (“Plaintiff”). (ECF No. 27.) Defendant did not file an opposition. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion. The local rules of this district require an attorney who would withdraw and leave his or her client without representation to obtain leave of court upon a noticed motion. E.D. Cal. L.R. 182(d). Local Rule 182(d) also requires an attorney to provide notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared, and an affidavit stating the current or last known address of the client. Id. Finally, to comply with Local Rule 182(d), the attorney must conform to the requirements of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Id. The decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw is within a court’s discretion. McNally v. Eye Dog Found. for the Blind, Inc., No. 09-cv-AWI-SKO-01174, 2011 WL 1087117, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2011). District courts within this circuit have considered several factors when evaluating a motion to withdraw, including the reason for withdrawal, prejudice to the client, prejudice to the other litigants, harm to the administration of justice, and possible delay. See, e.g., Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. 09-cv-01643-SBA, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010); CE Res., Inc. v. Magellan Group, LLC, No. 08-cv-02999-MCE-KJM, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2009); Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 07-cv- 00594-WQH-NLS, 2008 WL 410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008). In the instant case, Plaintiff’s counsel satisfied Local Rule 182(d) by filing a declaration that he informed Plaintiff of his intent to withdraw and by providing the Court with Plaintiff’s last known address. (ECF No. 27 at 7.) Plaintiff’s counsel also established withdrawal is proper under the California Rules of Professional Conduct. More specifically, California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(4) states an attorney may withdraw from representing a client if the client “renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively.” In addition, California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(5) allows an attorney to withdraw if the client breaches a material term of an agreement with, or obligation, to the lawyer relating to the representation. Plaintiff’s counsel represents there has been a breakdown in communication with Plaintiff which has resulted in a fundamental disagreement as to the prosecution of this matter and Plaintiff has breached the retainer agreement. (Id.) Accordingly, there is good cause to allow Plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw. Although this matter is currently set for trial in February 2025, the Court finds there is a low risk of prejudice to Plaintiff and the other litigants if this motion is granted because there is sufficient time for Plaintiff to acquire new counsel to represent her at trial or alternatively prepare to represent herself at trial. Lastly, the Court cannot identify any harm to the administration of justice or possible delay that would result from granting the motion to withdraw. For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 27), leaving Plaintiff in Pro Per. Plaintiff has sixty (60) days from the entry of this Order to either: (1) inform the Court that she intends to proceed to trial without counsel; or (2) acquire new representation and file a notice of appearance by new counsel. Failure to follow the Court’s orders may result in dismissal of Plaintiff from this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Clerk of Court is directed to serve this Order on Plaintiff Sana Bhumbla at 93 Via Pescara, American Canyon, California, 94503. Date: August 5, 2024 () f )) “ Mn Vbsakuy Troy L. Nuhlep ] United States District Judge