Filed: Mar. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 27, 2019
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM Q. HAYES , District Judge . The matter before the Court is the Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Counsel Bart Miesfeld filed by Plaintiff City of Chula Vista. (ECF No. 25). "An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court, and the decision to grant or deny counsel's motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial court." Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., 2008 WL 410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM Q. HAYES , District Judge . The matter before the Court is the Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Counsel Bart Miesfeld filed by Plaintiff City of Chula Vista. (ECF No. 25). "An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court, and the decision to grant or deny counsel's motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial court." Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., 2008 WL 410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations o..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.
The matter before the Court is the Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Counsel Bart Miesfeld filed by Plaintiff City of Chula Vista. (ECF No. 25).
"An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court, and the decision to grant or deny counsel's motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial court." Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., 2008 WL 410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009); S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 83.3(g)(3) (requiring that a notice of motion to withdraw as attorney of record be served on the adverse party and on the moving attorney's client, along with a declaration of service).
In ruling on a motion to withdraw as counsel, courts consider: (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.
Leatt Corp. v. Innovative Safety Tech., LLC, 2010 WL 444708, at * 1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2010) (citation omitted). The Local Rules of this district incorporate "the standards of professional conduct required by members of the State Bar of California," which permit withdrawal when "[t]he member believes in good faith, in a proceeding pending before a tribunal, that the tribunal will find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal." See S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 83.4; Rules of Prof'l Conduct of the State Bar of Cal., Rule 3-700(C)(6).
Plaintiff moves for withdrawal of Miesfeld as counsel and states that "Mr. Miesfeld is no longer employed by the City of Chula Vista." (ECF No. 25 at 2). Plaintiff filed a declaration by Karen Rogan in support of the Motion. (ECF No. 25-1). The declaration states, "I am an attorney of record for Plaintiff City of Chula Vista in this matter. . . . City of Chula Vista continues to represent Plaintiff City of Chula Vista in this case as counsel of record. Baron & Budd, P.C. is also counsel of record to Plaintiff." Id. at 2. The Court finds that good cause exists to grant withdrawal.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Counsel Bart Miesfeld filed by Plaintiff City of Chula Vista (ECF No. 25), is GRANTED.
