Kelly-Harrison, INC v. WCM & Associates

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 27, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01752
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 KELLY-HARRISON, INC, 5 Case No.: 2:24-cv-01752-RFB-NJK Plaintiff, 6 Order v. 7 [Docket No. 37] WCM & ASSOCIATES., 8 Defendant. 9 10 Pending before the Court is a motion to withdraw as counsel for Defendant. Docket No. 11 37. 12 Whether to allow withdrawal of counsel is an issue entrusted to the broad discretion of the 13 Court. Whiting v. Lacara, 187 F.3d 317, 320 (2d Cir. 1999); see also LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 14 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998). In exercising that discretion, courts may consider a number of 15 factors, including: “(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may 16 cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and 17 (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Williams v. Cnty. of 18 Fresno, 562 F. Supp. 3d 1032, 1035 (E.D. Cal. 2021). 19 Defense counsel submits that withdrawal is warranted based on Defendant’s failure to pay 20 legal fees. See Docket No. 37 at 3. Courts generally view a failure to pay legal fees as a weak 21 justification for withdrawal. See, e.g., Bd. of Trs. of the Constr. Indus. v. Sentinel Maint. of Las 22 Vegas, LLC, No. 2:22-cv-00565-JCM-NJK, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76796 at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 26, 23 2024); see also Playup, Inc. v. Mintas, No. 2:21-cv-02129-GMN-NJK, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24 67474, at *4 (D. Nev. Apr. 9, 2024). It is not clear that such a circumstance warrants allowing 25 withdrawal at this juncture. There are only two pending depositions and, importantly, discovery 26 closes on July 7, 2025, just over a week from now. Docket No. 37 at 5-6. See, e.g., S.E.C. v. 27 Zufelt, 2015 WL 7176366, at *1 (D. Utah Nov. 13, 2015) (denying request to withdraw as counsel 28 1} before upcoming depositions). The Court is therefore not persuaded by defense counsel’s assertion that “no delay of any kind will result” from the withdrawal. See Docket No. 37 at 6. 3 Moreover, withdrawal is sought for a corporate defendant, which cannot proceed without 4] an attorney. United States v. High Country Broad. Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993). Hence, 5] allowing withdrawal, particularly in the twilight of the discovery period, will likely result in weeks 6] or months of delay while Defendant attempts to retain new counsel. It is not clear that this delay 7| (or potential creation of additional proceedings) is justified given the procedural posture and the 8|| discovery that appears to be left in the case. 9 Given the circumstances, the Court has not been persuaded that withdrawal is appropriate 10] at this time. Therefore, the motion to withdraw is DENIED without prejudice. Docket No. 37. 11] The hearing set for 1:30 p.m. on June 27, 2025, is hereby VACATED. 12 Unless and until the Court grants any renewed motion to withdraw, counsel of record for 13] Defendant remain its counsel and must comply with all deadlines set by the Court, as well as all 14] requirements of representation. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: June 27, 2025. 17 . 18 es for fn NANCY. KOPPE 19 -UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28