Josie Belliard v. American Airlines, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: December 16, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00884
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 JOSIE BELLIARD, an individual, Case No.: 25cv0884-W-BJW

14 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY’S 15 v. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 16 AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., and [DOC. 18] DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 17 Defendant. 18 19 20 Before the Court is Jurewitz Law Group’s (“Jurewitz”) motion to withdraw as 21 attorney of record for Plaintiff Josie Belliard (“Plaintiff”). (Doc. 18.) Jurewitz states that 22 Plaintiff and Defendant American Airlines (“Defendant”) will not be opposing the 23 motion. (Id. at 2.) The hearing date set for January 12, 2026, is VACATED1. The Court 24 decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See CivLR 25 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED [Doc. 18]. 26

27 1 In light of Jurewitz’s motion and accompanying exhibits, the Court finds good cause to decide this 28 1 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2 On April 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court against Defendant. 3 (Complaint [Doc. 1].) Plaintiff was a passenger on an American Airlines flight and fell on 4 the way to the bathroom due to a blanket being in the aisle. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that 5 Defendant breached its duty of care and was negligent by failing to warn or remove the 6 dangerous condition. (Id.) On July 17, 2025, Defendant answered the complaint. (Answer 7 [Doc. 4].) On October 15, 2025, Magistrate Judge Brian White conducted an early neutral 8 evaluation and case management conference. (Doc. 14.) The case did not settle, and a 9 scheduling order was entered. (Docs. 14, 15.) On November 10, 2025, Jurewitz filed a 10 consent order form for substitution of attorney. (See Doc. 16.) The Court, however, struck 11 the document since withdrawing as counsel generally requires a fully briefed motion. 12 (Doc. 17.) Now Jurewitz again moves to withdraw as attorney of record for Plaintiff. 13 (Mtn. [Doc. 18-1].) 14 15 II. LEGAL STANDARD 16 An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court. Darby v. City 17 of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992); CivLR 83(3)(f)(3). “The grant or 18 denial of an attorney’s motion to withdraw in a civil case is a matter addressed to the 19 discretion of the trial court . . . .” Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, Inc., 694 F.2d 20 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1982). Factors considered in evaluating the motion are “(1) the 21 reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other 22 litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the 23 degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” CE Resource, Inc. v. 24 Magellan Group, LLC, No. 2:08-CV-02999MCEKJM, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D. 25 Cal. Oct. 14, 2009) (citing Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, No. 1:02-cv-06599, 26 2009 WL 89141, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan 14, 2009)). 27 Withdrawal of counsel is governed by the standards of professional conduct 28 required of members of the State Bar of California. See Nehad v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 962, 1 970 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying California Rules of Professional Conduct to attorney 2 withdrawal). Under the California professional conduct rules, an attorney may withdraw 3 if “the client by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out 4 the representation effectively.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(b). 5 6 III. ANALYSIS 7 Jurewitz asserts that good cause exists to withdraw as Plaintiff’s counsel due to a 8 break down in the attorney-client relationship. (Mtn. at 2-5.) In support of its motion, 9 Jurewitz states that Plaintiff “became dissatisfied with the services being provided and 10 elected to terminate the attorney-client relationship[,]” and that “irreconcilable 11 differences regarding litigation strategy and case management” have arisen. (Id. at 4.) 12 Jurewitz further explains that “Plaintiff has repeatedly rejected counsel’s professional 13 advice while insisting on actions that are contrary to counsel’s legal judgment and years 14 of experience.” (Id.) “Plaintiff has also accused counsel of incompetence, thereby 15 rendering continued representation unreasonably difficult.” (Id.) Jurewitz concludes that 16 “[t]his strained relationship has impaired counsel’s ability to effectively and ethically 17 advocate on Plaintiff’s behalf.” (Mtn. at 4.) 18 Jurewitz also includes email communications with Plaintiff in its motion. (Mtn. Ex. 19 A [Doc. 18-2].) In an email dated October 30, 2025, Plaintiff wrote “you are no longer 20 my lawyer. If you have any documents belonging to me, please return them asap.” (Id. at 21 8.) The remaining emails appear to concern coordination of Jurewitz’s withdrawal from 22 the case. (See Mtn. Ex. A.) Furthermore, Jurewitz includes the previously stricken consent 23 order form for substitution of attorney with Plaintiff’s signature. (See Mtn. Ex. B [Doc. 24 18-2].) 25 Based on the above, the Court finds that both Plaintiff and Jurewitz wish to 26 terminate the attorney-client relationship. Jurewitz’s motion and representations indicate 27 that there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Moreover, it does not 28 appear that Jurewitz’s withdrawal or termination will cause any prejudice, harm, or undue 1 delay in this matter. Accordingly, these factors weigh in favor of permitting Jurewitz to 2 || withdraw as Plaintiff's attorney of record. The Court finds that a 60-day continuance of 3 || all case deadlines is appropriate to give Plaintiff additional time to find another attorney. 4 further delays will be permitted. 5 6 ||TV. CONCLUSION & ORDER 7 For all the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Jurewitz’s motion to 8 || withdraw as attorney of record for Plaintiff [Doc. 18] and ORDERS as follows: 9 e Jurewitz shall serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff and shall file the proof 10 of service; 1] e No later than January 2, 2026, Plaintiff shall file a notice with this Court 12 confirming the mailing address for service of process; and 13 e In light of this order, the Court CONTINUES all current case deadlines by 14 60 days to give Plaintiff more time to find an attorney. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: December 16, 2025 17 \ : Hn. 1 omas J. Whelan 20 Unted States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28