Russell v. Samec

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 23, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00263
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 ROBERT RUSSELL, CASE NO. 2:20-cv-00263-RSM-JRC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. WITHDRAW 13 JOSEPH SAMEC, 14 Defendant. 15 This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s attorney’s motion to withdraw himself and 16 his firm as counsel. See Dkt. 80. Attorney Brian Zuanich moves to withdraw himself and 17 Zuanich Law, PLLC, as counsel for plaintiff based on plaintiff’s “fail[ure] to comply with certain 18 portions of our fee agreement” and because plaintiff has filed a pending motion to dismiss claims 19 against the remaining defendant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), so counsels’ withdrawal will not 20 prejudice plaintiff. Dkt. 80, at 2. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule (LCR) 83.2(b)(1), the motion 21 includes a certification that the motion was served on all parties and on plaintiff and provides 22 plaintiff’s contact information. See Dkt. 80, at 1–2. 23 The court considers several factors when “evaluating a motion to withdraw, including (1) 24 the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; 1 (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which 2 withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc., No. C12- 3 0991JLR, 2014 WL 556010, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 12, 2014). Here, none of these 4 considerations weigh against denying the motion to withdraw, in light of the pending motion for

5 voluntary dismissal of the remainder of plaintiff’s claims. No party has opposed the motion to 6 withdraw or claimed that the withdrawal would cause prejudice. In light of these circumstances, 7 although the withdrawal is after the discovery cutoff date, the Court will nevertheless grant the 8 motion. See LCR 83.2(b)(1) (“The attorney will ordinarily be permitted to withdraw until sixty 9 days before the discovery cut off[.]”); see also Washington v. Starbucks Corp., No. C08- 10 1144JCC, 2009 WL 10675531, at *1 (W.D. Wash. May 18, 2009) (allowing counsel 11 to withdraw even though “less than sixty days remain before the discovery cut off date”); Wild 12 Bainbridge v. Mainlander Servs. Corp., No. C04-5054BHS, 2008 WL 2230712 (W.D. Wash. 13 May 29, 2008) (permitting withdrawal even though counsel moved to withdraw one day after 14 the discovery cutoff date).

15 The Clerk shall terminate attorneys Brian Zuanich and Robert P. Zuanich (the other 16 attorney associated with Zuanich Law, PLLC) as counsel of record and shall send plaintiff a 17 copy of this Order. 18 Dated this 23rd day of July, 2021. 19

20 A 21 J. Richard Creatura 22 Chief United States Magistrate Judge

23 24