ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW Dkt. No. 45

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, Magistrate Judge.

Presently before the Court is the motion of the Mellen Law Firm to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff Robert Quintero. (Dkt. No. 45.) Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo") filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff's counsel's motion to withdraw. (Dkt. No. 46.) In response to the orders of the Court (Dkt. Nos. 47, 49), and in support of its motion, the Mellen Law Firm has filed a declaration setting forth the grounds for withdrawal. (Dkt. No. 50.) Plaintiff has since stipulated to the Mellen Law Firm's withdrawal and has represented that he will proceed in this matter pro se until he retains substitute counsel. (Dkt. No. 60.)

As set forth in the Court's prior order, the decision to permit withdrawal of counsel is within the trial court's discretion. See United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009); Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, Inc., 694 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1982). Courts ruling on motions to withdraw have considered, among other things, "(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal may cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case." Irwin v. Mascott, No. 97-4737, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28264, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2004). In this District, courts also consider the standards of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of California when determining whether counsel may withdraw representation. See, e.g., U.A. Local 342 Joint Labor-Mgmt. Comm. v. So. City Refrigeration, Inc., No. C-09-3219 JCS, 2010 WL 1293522, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2010); Cal. Native Plant Soc'y v. U.S. EPA, No. C 06-3604 PJH, 2008 WL 4911162, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2008). Under the California Rules of Professional Conduct, an attorney may request permission to withdraw if the client "breaches an agreement or obligation to the member as to expenses or fees" or on the basis of "conduct [that] renders it unreasonably difficult for the [attorney] to carry out the employment effectively." Cal. Rule of Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d), (f). However, "withdrawal is only proper if the client's interest will not be unduly prejudiced or delayed." McClintic, 2014 WL 51151, at *2 (citation omitted).

Here, Matthew Mellen of the Mellen Law Firm has filed a sworn declaration noting that "Mellen Law Firm and Plaintiff have reached an intractable disagreement over [] attorneys' fees, which resulted in an irretrievable breakdown of the relationship which prevents Mellen Law Firm from being able to represent Plaintiff. It is also true that Plaintiff does not wish to incur any additional attorneys' fees." (Dkt. No. 50 ¶ 4.) These reasons support a finding of good cause to grant Plaintiff's counsel leave to withdraw representation. Furthermore, given the procedural posture of this case, there will be no prejudice to Plaintiff from his counsel's withdrawal. In particular, under the terms of the parties' conditional settlement, Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss the action if Defendant offers an acceptable loan modification. (See id. ¶ 7.) This litigation has been stayed while Defendant conducts its review, which is ongoing. (Id.) Although the parties indicate that the conditional settlement is unlikely to resolve this matter such that further litigation will be necessary, there are no deadlines yet in place—certainly none looming near that might need to be extended. In other words, counsel is not leaving Plaintiff in a lurch with fast-approaching deadlines. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to believe that granting the Mellen Law Firm's motion to withdraw might otherwise prejudice Plaintiff or delay this action. Indeed, Plaintiff stipulates to the Mellen Law Firm's withdrawal and will proceed pro se until he has acquired funding to retain substitute counsel. (Dkt. No. 60 at 1.) Thus, each of the factors addressed in Irwin support withdrawal. Irwin, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28264, at *3.

Accordingly, the Mellen Law Firm's motion to withdraw is hereby GRANTED. The Case Management Conference previously set for March 26, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. will proceed as scheduled, with counsel for Defendant appearing by telephone and Plaintiff appearing pro se.

This Order disposes of Docket No. 45.

IT IS SO ORDERED.