Schoenbeck v. United States

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: July 10, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-01635
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS J. SCHOENBECK, Case No.: 23-cv-1635-RSH-JLB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. WITHDRAW

14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, [ECF No. 58] 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 Before the Court is a motion to withdraw filed by Plaintiff’s counsel, Mitchell Leeds 20 LLP (“MLP”). ECF No. 58. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), the Court finds the 21 motion presented appropriate for resolution without oral argument. For the reasons below, 22 the Court grants the motion. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 On September 6, 2023, Plaintiff Thomas Schoenbeck filed this action initially 25 proceeding pro se. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff subsequently retained MLP as counsel. ECF Nos. 26 6; 7. On March 4, 2025 and May 27, 2025, MLP filed motions to withdraw as Plaintiff’s 27 counsel. ECF Nos. 34; 45. The Court denied MLP’s motions without prejudice, holding 28 counsel had not filed a declaration as to how Plaintiff was served with these motions in 1 compliance with this District’s Civil Local Rules. See Civil Local Rule 83.3(f)(3)(b); ECF 2 Nos. 37; 49. On July 8, 2025, MLP filed the instant renewed motion to withdraw. ECF No. 3 58. 4 II. ANALYSIS 5 A. Compliance with Civil Local Rules 6 Under this District’s Civil Local Rules, a motion to withdraw as attorney of record 7 must: (1) be served on the adverse party and on the moving attorney’s client; and (2) 8 include a declaration pertaining to such service. Civil Local Rule 83.3(f)(3). “Failure to 9 make [service] as required by this section or to file the required declaration of service will 10 result in a denial of the motion.” Civil Local Rule 83.3(f)(3)(b). 11 Here, Plaintiff’s counsel, Nathaniel Leeds, filed a sworn declaration attesting that 12 his office attempted to personally serve Plaintiff with MLP’s withdrawal motion on June 13 12, 2025 and subsequently mailed a copy to Plaintiff’s residence on June 27, 2025. ECF 14 No. 58-2 at ¶¶ 4–5. The Court is further informed Plaintiff appeared at a status conference 15 held before Magistrate Judge Jill Burkhardt on July 9, 2025 and had notice of counsel’s 16 intent to withdraw. For these reasons, the Court holds the requirements of Civil Local Rule 17 83.3(f)(3)(b) have been met. 18 B. Grounds for Withdrawal 19 “In federal court, ‘[a]n attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of 20 court, and the decision to grant or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the 21 discretion of the trial court.’” Novalk, LLC v. Kinsale Ins. Co., No. 22-CV-0290-BAS-LR, 22 2024 WL 4774887, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2024) (quoting Garrett v. Ruiz, No. 11-CV- 23 2540-IEG WVG, 2013 WL 163420, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013)). “In ruling on a motion 24 to withdraw as counsel, courts consider: (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the 25 prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to 26 the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the 27 resolution of the case.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 28 /// 1 Here, MLP’s motion states that between August 2024 and March 2025, 2 ||“irreconcilable differences” developed between counsel and Plaintiff resulting in 3 “multiple, lengthy breakdowns in communication.” ECF No. 58 at 2; ECF No. 58-1 4 5. 4 || The Court is informed that at the July 9, 2025 status conference before Judge Burkhardt, 5 || Plaintiff did not object to counsel’s withdrawal but disagreed with several of counsel’s 6 || characterizations regarding the reasons for the breakdown. Under these circumstances, the 7 Court finds good cause exists for MLP’s withdrawal. See [skander v. Otay Mesa Det. Ctr., 8 || No. 24-CV-01572-GPC-VET, 2024 WL 4983155, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2024) (granting 9 motion to withdraw as counsel of record based on “irreconcilable differences”); Rebecca 10 || Bamberger Works, LLC v. Bamberger, No. 24-CV-706 JLS (DDL), 2024 WL 4030681, at 11 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2024) (same). 12 CONCLUSION 13 For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS MLP’s motion to withdraw as counsel 14 ORDERS as follows: 15 1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to update the docket to reflect: (1) the 16 || withdrawal of MLP as counsel for Plaintiff in this case; and (2) Plaintiff's current mailing 17 || address as set forth in counsel’s declaration: 42675 Saint George Drive, Bermuda Dunes, 18 || California 92203. 19 2. MLP is ORDERED to serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff and file a proof 20 || of service with the Court by no later than July 15, 2025. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: July 10, 2025 [ehut C , 8 23 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 25 26 27 28