Rebecca Bamberger Works, LLC v. Bamberger

Opinion

REBECCA BAMBERGER WORKS, Case No.: 24-CV-706 JLS (DDL) LLC d/b/a BAM COMMUNICATIONS, a Delaware limited liability company; ORDER (1) APPROVING LLORENTE & CUENCA USA, INC., a DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF Delaware corporation; and LLORENTE & SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL, CUENCA MADRID S.L., a foreign AND (2) GRANTING MOVANT’S corporation, MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL Plaintiffs,

v. (ECF Nos. 126, 127) REBECCA BAMBERGER, an individual; RBW HOLDCO, INC., a California corporation; BAM BY BIG LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 20, Defendants.

REBECCA BAMBERGER, an individual; RBW HOLDCO, INC., a California corporation; and BAM BY BIG LLC, a California limited liability company, Counterclaimants, v. LLC d/b/a BAM COMMUNICATIONS, a Delaware limited liability company; LLORENTE & CUENCA USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and LLORENTE & CUENCA MADRID S.L., a foreign corporation, Counterdefendants Presently before the Court are Defendants Rebecca Bamberger; RBW Holdco, Inc.; and BAM by BIG LLC’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Notice of Substitution of Counsel (“Notice,” ECF No. 126) and Movant Minerva Law LLP’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendants Michael Melvin and Jillian Veglahn (“Mot. to Withdraw,” ECF No. 127). As to the Notice of Substitution of Counsel, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3(f)(2), Defendants ask the Court to allow a substitution of attorney—with Mr. C. William Turnbow of Turnbow Law Firm, APC to replace David H. Lichtenstein, Lee E. Hejmanowski, and Joseph M. Radochonski of Caldarelli Hejmanowski Page & Leer, LLP. Good cause appearing, the Court APPROVES the substitution of attorney. As to the Motion to Withdraw, Movant asks the Court for leave to withdraw as counsel for Defendants Michael Melvin and Jillian Veglahn, seeing as this case was closed on January 6, 2025, and any lingering disputes over enforcement of the settlement agreement—over which the Court retained jurisdiction—have “nothing to do with either Melvin or Veglahn.” Mot. to Withdraw at 3. Movant represents that it informed Melvin and Veglahn of the termination of their representation on January 16, 2025, and that neither Melvin nor Veglahn intends to continue the attorney-client relationship any further in this matter. Id. With its clients’ consent, Movant wishes to withdraw as counsel. Id. at 4. “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court, and the decision to grant or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial court.” Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. O7CV594WQH (NLS), 2008 WL 410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008) (citation modified). “In ruling on a motion to withdraw as counsel, courts consider: (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Leatt Corp. v. Innovative Safety Tech., LLC, No. 09-CV-1301-IEG (POR), }2010 WL 444708, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2010) (citing Beard, 2008 WL 410694, at *2). Here, good cause exists to grant Movant’s Motion. This case has concluded, and the Court detects no risk of prejudice to any other litigants or the administration of justice at large. Because Melvin and Veglahn have consented to Movant’s withdrawal, the Court GRANTS the withdrawal request. Accordingly, the Court APPROVES Defendants’ Notice of Substitution of Counsel (ECF No. 126) and GRANTS Movant’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (ECF No. 127). The Clerk of the Court SHALL update the docket to reflect the withdrawal of Minerva Law LLP as counsel for Michael Melvin and Jillian Veglahn and SHALL remove it from CM/ECF service list for this matter. ! Dated: May 30, 2025 tt pen Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge