Textron Financial Corporation v. Gallegos, 15cv1678-LAB (AGS). (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180104a29
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 03, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 03, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW LARRY ALAN BURNS , District Judge . Counsel for Michael Gallegos filed a pro forma motion asking the Court to approve their withdrawal from this action and allow Gallegos to proceed pro se. "The decision to grant or deny a motion for withdrawal is within the court's sound discretion, and courts consider the following factors: (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cau
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW LARRY ALAN BURNS , District Judge . Counsel for Michael Gallegos filed a pro forma motion asking the Court to approve their withdrawal from this action and allow Gallegos to proceed pro se. "The decision to grant or deny a motion for withdrawal is within the court's sound discretion, and courts consider the following factors: (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might caus..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW
LARRY ALAN BURNS, District Judge.
Counsel for Michael Gallegos filed a pro forma motion asking the Court to approve their withdrawal from this action and allow Gallegos to proceed pro se. "The decision to grant or deny a motion for withdrawal is within the court's sound discretion, and courts consider the following factors: (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case." Light Salt Investments, LP v. Fisher, 2013 WL 12121255, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2013). Gallegos's counsel hasn't provided any reason why the Court should permit withdrawal. And the Court doesn't see any reason to allow withdrawal three years into this action with multiple motions pending, upcoming hearings, discovery requests, and serious allegations of fraud and evasion at stake. The motion is DENIED. An order on Judge Schopler's R&R concerning Dkt. 246 will follow.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
