Runyon v. FCA US, LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 6, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-01843
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 PATRICK RUNYON, Case No.: 24-cv-01843-H-VET 11

Plaintiff, 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO v. WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR 13 PLAINTIFF PATRICK RUNYON FCA US, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, 14 inclusive,

15 Defendants. 16 [Doc. No. 16.]

17 On February 7, 2025, Strategic Legal Practices, APC (“SLP”), counsel for Plaintiff 18 Patrick Runyon in this action, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Runyon. 19 (Doc. No. 16.) Defendant FCA US, LLC did not file a timely response to SLP’s motion. 20 See Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2). For the reasons below, the Court grants SLP’s motion to 21 withdraw. 22 Rule 1.16(b) of the ABA rules governs permissive withdrawals of counsel and 23 provides that “a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if . . . the representation 24 will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered 25 unreasonably difficult by the client.”1 Model Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 1.16(b)(6) (Am. 26 27 28 1 SPC’s motion cites to the California Rules of Professional Conduct, not the ABA rules. (Doc. No. 16 at 1 Bar. Ass’n 2020). Rule 1.16(c) further provides: “A lawyer must comply with applicable 2 law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation.” Id. 3 r. 1.16(c). 4 “In federal court, ‘[a]n attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of 5 court, and the decision to grant or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the 6 discretion of the trial court.’” Westhoff Vertriebsges mbH v. Berg, No. 22-CV-0938-BAS- 7 SBC, 2024 WL 947803, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2024). “To determine whether counsel 8 should be allowed to withdraw, courts consider ‘(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; 9 (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might 10 cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay 11 the resolution of the case.’” In re Saber, No. 21-55913, 2022 WL 11592836, at *1 (9th 12 Cir. Oct. 20, 2022) (quoting Williams v. Cnty. of Fresno, 562 F. Supp. 3d 1032, 1035 (E.D. 13 Cal. 2021)). Under the Court’s Civil Local Rules, a motion to withdraw must: (1) be served 14 on the adverse party and moving attorney’s client; and (2) include a declaration pertaining 15 to service of the motion. S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 83.3(f)(3). “Failure to make service as 16 required . . . or to file the required declaration of service will result in a denial of the 17 motion.” Id. 18 As an initial matter, SLP’s motion to withdraw complies with the Court’s Civil Local 19 Rules. SLP attached a declaration to its motion stating that Defendant FCA US, LLC was 20 served with the motion via the Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system and Plaintiff 21 Runyon was served with the motion to withdraw via email and express mail. (See Doc. 22 No. 16, Tirmizi Decl. ¶ 8.) This is sufficient to comply with Civil Local Rule 83.3(f)(3). 23 Turning to the merits of the motion, SLP has provided the Court with a declaration 24 from attorney Rabiya Tirmizi stating that SLP has not been able to establish contact with 25

26 California. See Stanz v. Brown, No. 3:22-CV-01164-GPC-JLB, 2024 WL 4267191, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Cal. 27 Sept. 23, 2024); Suarez v. Del Toro, No. 22-CV-0021-GPC-BLM, 2023 WL 149105, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 28 10, 2023); see also Radcliffe v. Hernandez, 818 F.3d 537, 541 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]he Ninth Circuit refers 1 Plaintiff Runyon since December 3, 2024, despite numerous attempts via phone and email. 2 (See Doc. No. 16, Tirmizi Decl. ¶¶ 2, 7.) SLP’s inability to communicate with its client 3 has forced it to seek multiple continuances for the required Early Neutral Evaluation and 4 Case Management Conference scheduled in this action. (See Doc. No. 16 at 5–6; Doc. 5 Nos. 8, 12.) SLP asserts that its inability to communicate with its client makes it 6 “impossible to continue representing Plaintiff.” (Doc. No. 16 at 6.) This is a sufficient 7 reason to permit SLP to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Runyon. See Model Rules of 8 Pro. Conduct r. 1.16(b)(6); see also Cal. Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 1.16(b)(4)–(5). 9 Defendant FCA US, LLC, did not file a response to SLP’s motion to withdraw, so it does 10 not appear that permitting the withdrawal would harm Defendant. And, considering that 11 this case is in its early stages, the withdrawal will not unnecessarily delay resolution of this 12 case or harm the administration of justice. 13 For the reasons above, the Court grants SLP’s motion to withdraw. Strategic Legal 14 Practices, APC—including attorneys Elizabeth LaRocque, Rabiya Tirmizi, Tionna 15 Carvalho, and Sanam Vaziri—is withdrawn as counsel of record for Plaintiff Patrick 16 Runyon in this action. The Court orders the Clerk of Court to terminate Ms. LaRoque, Ms. 17 Tirmizi, Ms. Carvalho, and Ms. Vaziri as counsel of record for Plaintiff Runyon from the 18 CM/ECF docket. 19 SLP must file a notice providing the Court with Plaintiff Runyon’s phone number, 20 email address, and last known physical mailing address within seven (7) days from the 21 date of this order. In addition, within seven (7) days from the date this order, SPC 22 must provide Plaintiff Runyon via mail and email with: (1) a copy of this order and (2) the 23 following links along with an advisement that if he decides to represent himself and 24 proceed pro se in this civil action, he must file a motion for leave to electronically file (e- 25 file) documents in order to electronically file documents in this civil action. See 26 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Prose/Prose-FilingInfo.aspx; 27 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/ProSe.aspx 28 1 The Court schedules a telephonic status conference for Monday, April 7, 2025 at 2 ||10:30 a.m. SLP must appear at the status conference. The Court will vacate the status 3 ||conference if SPC files a declaration beforehand stating that SPC has satisfied all the 4 || requirements set forth above. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || DATED: March 6, 2025 | | | ul | | | MARILYN 2. HUFF, Distri ge 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28