O 11
44 55 66 77 United States District Court 88 Central District of California 99 1100 1111 KERRY CLASBY, Case No. 2:18-cv-02313-ODW (JPRx)
1122 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
1133 v. BE RELIEVED AS ATTORNEYS OF 1144 RECORD FOR KERRY CLASBY DRAGAN IVANOVIC, et al., [133] 1155 Defendants. 1166 1177 1188 I. INTRODUCTION 1199 Marc Rohatiner and his firm Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, 2200 counsel of record for Plaintiff Kerry Clasby, seek leave to withdraw as counsel. (Mot. 2211 to be Relieved as Att’ys of R. (“Mot.”), ECF No. 133.) The Motion stands 2222 unopposed. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Motion.1 2233 II. BACKGROUND 2244 On March 21, 2018, Clasby filed this suit against Defendants for 2255 Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Violation of 2266 California Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq., alleging harm to her 2277
2288 1 After considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. 1 business of procuring high-quality produce for high-end restaurants in Los Angeles. 2 (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) 3 Clasby retained Rohatiner in October 2017, but Rohatiner claims the 4 relationship between him and Clasby has deteriorated since February 2019. (Decl. of 5 Marc E. Rohatiner (“Rohatiner Decl.”) ¶¶ 3–4.) On March 7, 2019, Rohatiner moved 6 to withdraw as counsel. (Mot. to be Relieved as Counsel (“First Mot.”), ECF No. 47.) 7 At the time, Rohatiner explained that Clasby had grown unresponsive and 8 uncommunicative due to her increasing distrust of and animosity towards Rohatiner’s 9 ability to conduct her case. (Id. ¶ 4.) However, on April 1, 2019, the Court denied 10 Rohatiner’s first motion to withdraw without prejudice because at the time, trial was 11 scheduled to begin within the month. (See Min. of Pretrial Conf., ECF No. 77.) 12 On August 2, 2019, the Court vacated trial dates and stayed this case pending a 13 decision by the California Supreme Court as to the retroactivity of the decision in 14 Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018). (Order 15 Staying Case, ECF No. 115.) With no trial date currently set, Rohatiner once again 16 moves for leave to withdraw as counsel of record for Clasby. (See Mot.) Rohatiner 17 claims his attorney-client relationship with Clasby has become “increasingly strained” 18 because they fundamentally disagree about how to conduct the case; Clasby has 19 repeatedly expressed a lack of trust in Rohatiner’s judgment; Clasby has failed to pay 20 $157,494.98 in legal fees owed to Rohatiner; and Clasby fails to communicate with 21 Rohatiner out of distrust and animosity. (Mot. 3; Rohatiner Decl. ¶¶ 6–7.) Rohatiner 22 further declares that “with the passage of time, the animosity and tension have only 23 been exacerbated” between him and Clasby. (Rohatiner Decl. ¶ 8.) 24 III. LEGAL STANDARD 25 An attorney must obtain leave from the court to withdraw as counsel. C.D. Cal. 26 L.R. 83-2.3.2. Additionally, an attorney seeking leave to withdraw must provide their 27 client and all other parties with advanced written notice of their intent to withdraw. 28 C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.3.2. Ultimately, the decision to grant or deny the motion to 1 withdraw as counsel lies within the trial court’s discretion. Bernstein v. City of Los 2 Angeles, No. CV 19-03349 PA (GJSx), 2020 WL 4288443, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 3 2020) (citing LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998)). 4 To determine whether a movant has shown good cause for withdrawal, courts 5 consider: “(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may 6 cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of 7 justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” 8 Morfin v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. SACV 19-603 JVS (KESx), 2019 9 WL 7205882, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2019) (citing Huntington Learning Ctrs., Inc. 10 v. Educ. Gateway, Inc., No. CV 09-3200 PSG (VBKx), 2009 WL 2337863, at *1 11 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2009)). “Unless good cause is shown and the ends of justice 12 require, no substitution or relief of attorney will be approved that will cause delay in 13 prosecution of the case to completion.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.3.5. 14 IV. DISCUSSION 15 Rohatiner seeks leave to withdraw as Clasby’s counsel. As a preliminary 16 matter, Rohatiner represents that he provided advanced written notice to Clasby of his 17 intent to withdraw. (Rohatiner Decl. ¶ 10.) It also appears from Rohatiner’s 18 declaration that he provided prior notice to Defendants, who communicated to him 19 that they would not oppose the Motion. (See id. ¶ 9.) Thus, the Court considers the 20 relevant factors to determine whether good cause supports Rohatiner’s withdrawal. 21 1. Reasons Why Withdrawal Is Sought 22 First, Rohatiner seeks withdrawal for a number of reasons. As mentioned 23 above, Rohatiner claims that Clasby: fundamentally disagrees with Rohatiner about 24 how to conduct the case; no longer trusts Rohatiner’s judgment; owes $157,494.98 in 25 unpaid legal fees; and fails to communicate with Rohatiner due to distrust and 26 animosity. (Mot. 3; Rohatiner Decl. ¶¶ 6–7.) Although Rohatiner places great 27 emphasis on the fact that Clasby owes a significant amount in legal fees (Mot. 4–5.), 28 Clasby’s failure to pay down her incurred fees is insufficient on its own to establish 1 good cause. C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.3.2 (“Failure of the client to pay agreed 2 compensation is not necessarily sufficient to establish good cause.”). 3 Regardless, Rohatiner’s Motion does not solely rely on Clasby’s failure to pay. 4 Although limited by his ethical obligation to maintain client confidences, Rohatiner 5 indicates that Clasby’s behavior has made it unworkable to represent her. (Mot. 4–6.) 6 Rohatiner points to Clasby’s repeatedly expressed lack of trust and confidence in his 7 judgment, which has resulted in an increase in Clasby’s animosity toward him. (Id.) 8 Additionally, Rohatiner indicates Clasby has “remained unresponsive to requests for 9 material and information necessary” to conduct discovery and prepare for trial. (Id. 10 at 5.) Rohatiner’s declaration stands unrebutted; thus, the Court finds that the 11 breakdown in Rohatiner and Clasby’s relationship, as well as Clasby’s 12 unresponsiveness, constitute sufficient reasons for the Court to permit Rohatiner’s 13 withdrawal. See Alvarez v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., No. EDCV 19-387 JGB (SPx), 14 2019 WL 7875050, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2019) (permitting withdrawal based on “a 15 permanent and irreparable break in the attorney-client relationship”); Hammatt v. 16 Standard Ins. Co., No. 16-cv-1285-VAP (SPx), 2017 WL 10059293, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 17 Aug. 4, 2017) (“The lack of a cooperative relationship between an attorney and her 18 client may, at times, justify the attorney’s withdrawal.”). Based on these additional 19 reasons for withdrawal, this factor weighs in favor of granting the Motion. 20 2. Possible Prejudice to Other Litigants, Harm to the Administration of 21 Justice, and Delay to the Resolution of the Case 22 The second, third, and fourth factors also support a finding of good cause for 23 withdrawal because this matter is currently stayed, and no trial date has been set. (See 24 Order Staying Case (vacating trial dates).) Further, no Defendants oppose the Motion. 25 (Rohatiner Decl. ¶ 9.) Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Rohatiner’s 26 withdrawal would not prejudice other litigants, harm the administration of justice, or 27 delay resolution of the case. See Brandon v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
O 11
44 55 66 77 United States District Court 88 Central District of California 99 1100 1111 KERRY CLASBY, Case No. 2:18-cv-02313-ODW (JPRx)
1122 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
1133 v. BE RELIEVED AS ATTORNEYS OF 1144 RECORD FOR KERRY CLASBY DRAGAN IVANOVIC, et al., [133] 1155 Defendants. 1166 1177 1188 I. INTRODUCTION 1199 Marc Rohatiner and his firm Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, 2200 counsel of record for Plaintiff Kerry Clasby, seek leave to withdraw as counsel. (Mot. 2211 to be Relieved as Att’ys of R. (“Mot.”), ECF No. 133.) The Motion stands 2222 unopposed. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Motion.1 2233 II. BACKGROUND 2244 On March 21, 2018, Clasby filed this suit against Defendants for 2255 Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Violation of 2266 California Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq., alleging harm to her 2277
2288 1 After considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. 1 business of procuring high-quality produce for high-end restaurants in Los Angeles. 2 (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) 3 Clasby retained Rohatiner in October 2017, but Rohatiner claims the 4 relationship between him and Clasby has deteriorated since February 2019. (Decl. of 5 Marc E. Rohatiner (“Rohatiner Decl.”) ¶¶ 3–4.) On March 7, 2019, Rohatiner moved 6 to withdraw as counsel. (Mot. to be Relieved as Counsel (“First Mot.”), ECF No. 47.) 7 At the time, Rohatiner explained that Clasby had grown unresponsive and 8 uncommunicative due to her increasing distrust of and animosity towards Rohatiner’s 9 ability to conduct her case. (Id. ¶ 4.) However, on April 1, 2019, the Court denied 10 Rohatiner’s first motion to withdraw without prejudice because at the time, trial was 11 scheduled to begin within the month. (See Min. of Pretrial Conf., ECF No. 77.) 12 On August 2, 2019, the Court vacated trial dates and stayed this case pending a 13 decision by the California Supreme Court as to the retroactivity of the decision in 14 Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018). (Order 15 Staying Case, ECF No. 115.) With no trial date currently set, Rohatiner once again 16 moves for leave to withdraw as counsel of record for Clasby. (See Mot.) Rohatiner 17 claims his attorney-client relationship with Clasby has become “increasingly strained” 18 because they fundamentally disagree about how to conduct the case; Clasby has 19 repeatedly expressed a lack of trust in Rohatiner’s judgment; Clasby has failed to pay 20 $157,494.98 in legal fees owed to Rohatiner; and Clasby fails to communicate with 21 Rohatiner out of distrust and animosity. (Mot. 3; Rohatiner Decl. ¶¶ 6–7.) Rohatiner 22 further declares that “with the passage of time, the animosity and tension have only 23 been exacerbated” between him and Clasby. (Rohatiner Decl. ¶ 8.) 24 III. LEGAL STANDARD 25 An attorney must obtain leave from the court to withdraw as counsel. C.D. Cal. 26 L.R. 83-2.3.2. Additionally, an attorney seeking leave to withdraw must provide their 27 client and all other parties with advanced written notice of their intent to withdraw. 28 C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.3.2. Ultimately, the decision to grant or deny the motion to 1 withdraw as counsel lies within the trial court’s discretion. Bernstein v. City of Los 2 Angeles, No. CV 19-03349 PA (GJSx), 2020 WL 4288443, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 3 2020) (citing LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998)). 4 To determine whether a movant has shown good cause for withdrawal, courts 5 consider: “(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may 6 cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of 7 justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” 8 Morfin v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. SACV 19-603 JVS (KESx), 2019 9 WL 7205882, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2019) (citing Huntington Learning Ctrs., Inc. 10 v. Educ. Gateway, Inc., No. CV 09-3200 PSG (VBKx), 2009 WL 2337863, at *1 11 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2009)). “Unless good cause is shown and the ends of justice 12 require, no substitution or relief of attorney will be approved that will cause delay in 13 prosecution of the case to completion.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.3.5. 14 IV. DISCUSSION 15 Rohatiner seeks leave to withdraw as Clasby’s counsel. As a preliminary 16 matter, Rohatiner represents that he provided advanced written notice to Clasby of his 17 intent to withdraw. (Rohatiner Decl. ¶ 10.) It also appears from Rohatiner’s 18 declaration that he provided prior notice to Defendants, who communicated to him 19 that they would not oppose the Motion. (See id. ¶ 9.) Thus, the Court considers the 20 relevant factors to determine whether good cause supports Rohatiner’s withdrawal. 21 1. Reasons Why Withdrawal Is Sought 22 First, Rohatiner seeks withdrawal for a number of reasons. As mentioned 23 above, Rohatiner claims that Clasby: fundamentally disagrees with Rohatiner about 24 how to conduct the case; no longer trusts Rohatiner’s judgment; owes $157,494.98 in 25 unpaid legal fees; and fails to communicate with Rohatiner due to distrust and 26 animosity. (Mot. 3; Rohatiner Decl. ¶¶ 6–7.) Although Rohatiner places great 27 emphasis on the fact that Clasby owes a significant amount in legal fees (Mot. 4–5.), 28 Clasby’s failure to pay down her incurred fees is insufficient on its own to establish 1 good cause. C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.3.2 (“Failure of the client to pay agreed 2 compensation is not necessarily sufficient to establish good cause.”). 3 Regardless, Rohatiner’s Motion does not solely rely on Clasby’s failure to pay. 4 Although limited by his ethical obligation to maintain client confidences, Rohatiner 5 indicates that Clasby’s behavior has made it unworkable to represent her. (Mot. 4–6.) 6 Rohatiner points to Clasby’s repeatedly expressed lack of trust and confidence in his 7 judgment, which has resulted in an increase in Clasby’s animosity toward him. (Id.) 8 Additionally, Rohatiner indicates Clasby has “remained unresponsive to requests for 9 material and information necessary” to conduct discovery and prepare for trial. (Id. 10 at 5.) Rohatiner’s declaration stands unrebutted; thus, the Court finds that the 11 breakdown in Rohatiner and Clasby’s relationship, as well as Clasby’s 12 unresponsiveness, constitute sufficient reasons for the Court to permit Rohatiner’s 13 withdrawal. See Alvarez v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., No. EDCV 19-387 JGB (SPx), 14 2019 WL 7875050, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2019) (permitting withdrawal based on “a 15 permanent and irreparable break in the attorney-client relationship”); Hammatt v. 16 Standard Ins. Co., No. 16-cv-1285-VAP (SPx), 2017 WL 10059293, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 17 Aug. 4, 2017) (“The lack of a cooperative relationship between an attorney and her 18 client may, at times, justify the attorney’s withdrawal.”). Based on these additional 19 reasons for withdrawal, this factor weighs in favor of granting the Motion. 20 2. Possible Prejudice to Other Litigants, Harm to the Administration of 21 Justice, and Delay to the Resolution of the Case 22 The second, third, and fourth factors also support a finding of good cause for 23 withdrawal because this matter is currently stayed, and no trial date has been set. (See 24 Order Staying Case (vacating trial dates).) Further, no Defendants oppose the Motion. 25 (Rohatiner Decl. ¶ 9.) Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Rohatiner’s 26 withdrawal would not prejudice other litigants, harm the administration of justice, or 27 delay resolution of the case. See Brandon v. Blech, 560 F.3d 536, 537–39 (6th Cir. 28 2009 (finding district court abused its discretion in denying motion to withdraw while 1 || case was stayed). Accordingly, the Court finds that all factors weigh in favor of 2 || granting Rohatiner’s Motion. 3 V. CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Rohatiner’s Motion. (ECF 5 || No. 133.) It is hereby ORDERED that: 6 1. Rohatiner shall immediately serve Clasby with a copy of this Order. 7 2. Rohatiner shall file with the Court a (Proposed) Order on Request for Approval 8 of Substitution or Withdrawal of Attorney, G-O1 Order, providing Clasby’s 9 contact information, including her mailing address, e-mail address, and 10 telephone number, within five days of the date of this Order. Withdrawal will 11 not be effective until this (Proposed) G-01 Order is filed. 12 3. Clasby may either continue pro se or retain new counsel. If Clasby does not 13 retain new counsel, she shall represent herself pro se by default. If Clasby 14 proceeds pro se, she must comply with all Court Orders, the Local Rules, and 15 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.2 See C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.2.3. Non- 16 compliance with Court Orders may result in the imposition of sanctions, 17 including but not limited to the dismissal of the case with prejudice. 18 19 IT ISSO ORDERED. 20 November 3, 2020 Z vy KA 21 Gea Lut 7 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 243 The Local Rules are available at http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/court-procedures/local-rules. The 25 || Court may not provide legal advice to any party, including pro se litigants. There is a “Pro Se Clinic” in the courthouse that can provide information and assistance regarding civil litigation in this 26 | Court. The clinic is administered by Public Counsel, a public interest law firm, and it is open by 7 appointment only to members of the public on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from 9:30 a.m. to noon and 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The clinic is in the Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse, 255 28 || East Temple Street, Suite 170, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Additional information for pro se litigants can be found on the Central District’s website at the following url: http://prose.cacd.uscourts.gov/.