The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable David O. Carter, Judge
Julie Barrera Not Present Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: NONE PRESENT NONE PRESENT
PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING CORNELL'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR DEFENDANTS BOYD LEE CODDINGTON, JR., AND GENUINE BOYD'S, LLC.
Before the Court is a Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record for Defendants ("Motion") filed by the Law Offices of Ross Cornell, APC ("Cornell") (Dkt. 23). The Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local R. 7-15. After considering the moving papers, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
Because the Motion is GRANTED, the hearing originally scheduled for October 24, , is removed from the Court's calendar.
On August 18, 2010, Plaintiff Saemie Corporation ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint against Defendants Boyd Lee Coddington, Jr., and Genuine Boyd's, LLC ("Defendants"). (Dkt. 1). On September 30, 2010, Defendants filed an Answer and Counterclaims. (Dkt. 6).
The parties engaged in settlement conversations with a mediator from December 2010 through February 2011. (Dkts. 11, 19). However, when Defendant Boyd Lee Coddington, Jr., refused to appear at any future settlement conferences, the Court vacated the pending mandatory settlement conference dates and the case proceeded. (Dkts. 19).
On September 21, 2011, Cornell filed the present Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record for Defendants. Mot. (Dkt. 23). More than thirty days before Cornell filed the present Motion with this Court, Cornell also sent written notice of withdrawal and detailed the consequences of withdrawal to Defendants. Id. 2:5-11; 7:5-12. Neither Defendants nor Plaintiff oppose the present
An attorney may withdraw as counsel only with leave of the court and with reasonable notice to all other parties. Local R. 83-220.127.116.11; Darby v. City of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992). . The trial court has discretion in determining whether to grant counsel's motion for Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, Inc., 694 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1982). The disruptive impact that counsel's withdrawal would have on the case can also be a consideration for the Whiting v. Lacara, 187 F.3d 317, 320 (2d Cir. 1999). However, the risk that substitute counsel will be difficult to obtain or that the client will be subject to a default judgment, does not justify denying a motion for withdrawal. Portsmouth Redev. & Housing Auth. v. BMI Apartments Assocs., 851 F. Supp. 775, 786-87 (E.D. Va. 1994).
In deciding a motion to withdraw, courts have considered various factors, including the relevant professional rules of responsibility. See Rusinow v. Kamara, 920 F. Supp. 69, 71 (D.N.J. 1996) (considering why withdrawal was sought, prejudice that may be caused to other litigants, administration of justice, delay that may result and related state rules of professional conduct); Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 814 F. Supp. 414, 423 (D.N.J. 1993) (in denying counsel's ...