Quade v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: July 17, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-02120
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ALAN NORTHROP QUADE, a Case No.: 24-cv-2120-WQH-DEB Natural Person, 11 ORDER Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC; 14 DOES 1–20, inclusive, 15 Defendants. 16 HAYES, Judge: 17 The matter before the Court is the Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (the “Motion 18 to Withdraw”) (ECF No. 18) filed by John W. Hanson (“Hanson”), counsel of record for 19 Plaintiff Alan Northrop Quade (“Plaintiff”). 20 As a general matter, “[a]n attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of 21 court, and the decision to grant or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the 22 discretion of the trial court.” Urias v. Labcorp Peri-Approval & Commercialization Inc., 23 No. 23-CV-1815 JLS (MSB), 2023 WL 8845384, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2023) (citation 24 omitted); see also United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009); S.D. Cal. 25 Civ. L.R. 83.3(f)(3) (requiring that a notice of motion to withdraw as attorney of record be 26 served on the adverse party and on the moving attorney’s client, along with a declaration 27 of service). In evaluating a motion to withdraw, courts consider: (1) the reasons for 28 1 || withdrawal; (2) the potential prejudice to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might 2 ||cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay 3 || the resolution of the case. Leatt Corp. v. Innovative Safety Tech., LLC, No. 09-CV-1301- 4 ||TEG POR, 2010 WL 444708, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2010) (citation omitted). 5 In a declaration attached to the Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 18-1), Hanson asserts 6 || that he was “discharged [by Plaintiff] on June 30, 2025” because he had “completed the 7 required items and [ ] confirmed [his] discharge in writing.” (ECF No. 18-1 at 2.) Hanson 8 ||further represents that the Motion to Withdraw was served on both Plaintiff and 9 || Defendant’s counsel, in accordance with S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 83.3(f)(3)(a). See id. 10 || Accordingly, Hanson requests the Court relieve him from further representation as counsel 11 || for Plaintiff pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6104 and grant his Motion to Withdraw. 12 13 The Court finds that good cause exists to grant the Motion to Withdraw. 14 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 18) is granted. 15 || Hanson is withdrawn as counsel of record for Plaintiff in this action. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than seven (7) days from the entry of this 17 || Order, Hanson shall file a certificate of service indicating that he has served Plaintiff with 18 copy of this Order. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have twenty-one (21) days from the 20 || date of this Order to retain new counsel, and for such counsel to file a notice of appearance. 21 ||If no notice of appearance is filed within that time, the Court will deem Plaintiff as 22 || proceeding pro se. “A party proceeding pro se must keep the Court and opposing parties 23 || advised as to current address.” S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 83.11(b). “Failure to comply [ ] may be 24 || ground[s] for dismissal ....” S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 83.11(a). 25 26 Dated: July 15, 2025 BME: Me Z. Ma 27 Hon. William Q. Hayes 28 United States District Court