Spanos v. United States

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: June 27, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00160
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Alexander Spanos, No. CV-25-00160-PHX-MTL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 United States Postal Service, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is the Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel of Record for 16 Plaintiff Without Consent (Doc. 15) filed by Plaintiff’s counsel, Paul D. Friedman and 17 Amy L. Hindenlang. The basis of the motion is irreconcilable differences between Plaintiff 18 and his attorneys, as well as Plaintiff’s failure to respond to multiple communications from 19 Mr. Friedman and Ms. Hindenlang. (Id. at 1-2.) The motion complies with LRCiv. 83.3(b). 20 “An attorney may not, in the absence of the client’s consent, withdraw from a case 21 without justifiable cause; and then only after proper notice to his client, and on leave of the 22 court.” Lovvorn v. Johnston, 118 F.2d 704, 706 (9th Cir. 1941). The “justifiable cause” 23 standard is not terribly demanding. Hoppmann v. Pampered Pets & Plants Inc., No. 24 CV-22-00427-PHX-DWL, 2023 WL 9953527, at *2 (D. Ariz. Feb. 15, 2023). “Factors that 25 a district court should consider when ruling upon a motion to withdraw as counsel include: 26 (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other 27 litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the 28 degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case. Bohnert v. Burke, No. 1 CV-08-2303-PHX-LOA, 2010 WL 5067695, at *1 (D. Ariz. Dec. 7, 2010). 2 Under the first factor, the Court looks at the rules governing the attorney-client 3 relationship and the basis of withdrawal. See Hoppmann, 2023 WL 9953527, at *2. Simply 4 stating that “irreconcilable differences” exist between a client and attorney, without further 5 explanation, does not support withdrawal under the first factor. See Decker v. Zonic, No. 6 CV-23-08077-PCT-DWL, 2023 WL 7002678, at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 24, 2023). But Mr. 7 Friedman and Ms. Hindenlang also state Plaintiff has stopped communicating with them. 8 (Doc. 15 at 2.) Ethical Rule 1.16(b)(5) of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct states 9 a lawyer may withdraw if “the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer 10 regarding the lawyer’s services.” See also LRCiv. 83.2(e) (“[T]he Rules of the Supreme 11 court of the State of Arizona shall apply to attorneys admitted or otherwise authorized to 12 practice before [this Court].”). A client not communicating with their attorneys is a failure 13 to substantially fulfill their obligations in the attorney-client relationship. See Radford v. 14 Berg Homes LLC, CV-18-00287-PHX-DWL, 2020 WL 3440296, at *1 (D. Ariz. June 23, 15 2023). The first factor supports withdrawal. See id. 16 “[T]he professional considerations listed in ER 1.16 will often satisfy [the justifiable 17 cause standard], so long as the other factors don’t outweigh those considerations.” Id. For 18 the second factor, Plaintiff has not responded to Mr. Friedman and Ms. Hindenlang’s 19 attempts to communicate. (Doc. 15 at 2.) Thus, any prejudice is of Plaintiff’s own making 20 and does not weigh against withdrawal. See Radford, 2020 WL 3440296, at *1. For the 21 third and fourth factors, this case has just begun and is in the early stages of discovery. 22 Thus, withdrawal will not harm the administration of justice or greatly delay resolution of 23 this case. See id. Justifiable cause to withdraw exists; all four factors weigh in favor of 24 granting the motion. 25 Accordingly, 26 IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion (Doc. 15). 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting an in-person status conference for Tuesday, 2|| July 8, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. (Arizona time) in Courtroom 504, 401 West Washington Street, 3 || Phoenix, Arizona 85003 before United States District Judge Michael T. Liburdi. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED all deadlines in this action are stayed pending the 5|| July 8, 2025, status conference. 6 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that all further pleadings, notices, and orders in this matter shall be directed to Plaintiff at: g Alexander Spanos 2935 N. 18th Place, Room 217 9 Phoenix, AZ 85016 10 (623) 219-2930, otbgarcia25 @ gmail.com Dated this 27th day of June, 2025. 12 13 Wichal T. gh urge 14 Michael T. Liburdi 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-