United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL OF RECORD 
D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Alan M. Klein’s Motion to Withdraw as
counsel for Defendant Life N Style Fashions, Inc. (Mot., ECF
No. 30.) Plaintiff has not opposed the Motion. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion to
Withdraw and ORDERS Defendant Life N Style obtain new counsel
by September 18, 2016.
United Fabrics International, Inc. filed the instant
copyright action in this Court on July 29, 2015. (Compl., ECF
Alan Klein was retained by Defendant as trial counsel for the
case at bar. (Tsui-Yip Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 30-2.) All
communications between Klein and Defendant have been through
Defendant’s previously-retained intellectual property
counsel at Miskin & Tsui-Yip. (Tsui-Yip Decl. ¶ 3;
Klein Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 30-4.) Klein bills Defendant
for his work through Tsui-Yip. (Tsui-Yip Decl. ¶ 4;
Klein Decl. ¶ 3.) However, it appears that Defendant has
not paid Tsui-Yip for over ten months, and thus Tsui-Yip
cannot pay Klein. (Tsui-Yip Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.)
Defendant also has not been forthcoming with required
information and generally uncooperative throughout this
litigation, despite multiple requests. (Id.
¶¶ 8, 10-11.)
this breakdown between the attorney-client relationship,
Tsui-Yip believes it can no longer adequately represent
Defendant and, since Klein has no direct contact with
Defendant, he too can no longer effectively represent his
client. (Id. ¶¶ 8-11; Mot. 2.) In March
2016, Miskin & Tsui-Yip provided written and electronic
notice of its intentions to cease all representation as well
as Klein’s intentions to withdraw as counsel in this
matter. (Tsui-Yip Decl. ¶ 11.) This letter also advised
Defendant that, as an organization, it would need to retain
new counsel in order to proceed. (Id.)
August 4, 2016, Klein filed a Motion to Withdraw as counsel
of record. (ECF No. 30.) According to counsel, the
relationship between Defendant and its chosen trial counsel
has so deteriorated that counsel can no longer perform his
professional duties effectively. (Id. 3.) Plaintiff
has not opposed this motion.
Motion is now before the Court.
the local rules of this Court, “[a]n attorney may not
withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” L.R.
83-2.3.2; see also Darby v. City of Torrance, 810
F.Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal.1992). “A motion for leave
to withdraw must be made upon written notice given reasonably
in advance to the client and to all other parties who have
appeared in the action, ” and must be for good cause.
L.R. 83-2.3.2. However, “[a]n attorney requesting leave
to withdraw from representation of an organization of any
kind (including corporations, limited liability corporations,
partnerships, limited liability partnerships, unincorporated
associations, trusts) must give written notice to the
organization of the consequences of its inability to appear
pro se.” L.R. 83-2.3.4.
decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel for
a party is within the Court’s discretion. See,
e.g., Huntington Learning Ctrs., Inc. v. Educ.
Gateway, Inc., 2009 WL 2337863 at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 28,
Court finds good cause for withdrawal. In his Motion, counsel
details how Defendant has ceased paying for legal services or
offering required information in order for the litigation to
proceed. (Tsui-Yip Decl. ¶¶ 8, 10-11.) With a
client refusing to offer necessary information in the course
of representation, the Court agrees that the attorney-client
relationship is irreparably broken. See Cal. R.
Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d) (permissive withdrawal allowed
when client’s conduct “renders it unreasonably
difficult for the member to carry out the employment
effectively.”); see also Deal v. Countrywide Home
Loans, No. C 09-01643 SBA, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2-4
(N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010) (finding withdrawal warranted
where the client has made it unreasonably difficult to carry
out course of representation effectively). Furthermore, the
Motion complies ...