1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORAL SCHMALLE et al., Case No.: 18-CV-02469 W (MDD)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEYS’ 13 v. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS 14 PATRICIA PRUDHOMME et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Attorney Andres F. Quintana, Attorney John M. Houkom, and the law firm of 19 Quintana Law Group, APC (collectively, “QLG”) have filed a motion to withdraw as 20 attorney of record for Defendants Patricia Prudhomme and J6 Development, LLC (the 21 “Clients”).1 The motion is unopposed. 22 “The grant or denial of an attorney’s motion to withdraw in a civil case is a matter 23 addressed to the discretion of the trial court . . . .” Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, 24 25 1 In their papers QLG expresses uncertainty about whether it represents Defendant J6 Development, 26 LLC. Two documents confirm QLG represents J6 Development, LLC. First, in the Motion to Set Aside Default and Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process, QLG lists itself as “Attorneys for 27 Defendants … J6 Development, LLC.” (Mot. [Doc. 6] p. 1.) Second, in his declaration, Attorney John M. Houkom’s confirms that he is “counsel of record herein for Defendants … J6 Development, LLC.” 28 1 Inc.,

, 1087 (7th Cir. 1982). Factors considered in evaluating the motion 2 are “1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; 2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to 3 other litigants; 3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and 4 4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” CE Resource, 5 Inc. v. Magellan Group, LLC,

, at *2 (E.D.Cal. 2009) (citing 6 Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. Moldauer,

, at *1 (E.D.Cal. 2009)). 7 QLG contends irreconcilable differences have arisen during this case, in which 8 “the Clients have, by their conduct, rendered it unreasonably difficult for QLG to 9 effectively represent them.” (Mot. [Doc. 31] 6:14–15.) Additionally, QLG contends “the 10 Clients are in material breach of the Agreement by failing and refusing to cooperate with 11 QLG’s efforts on their behalf and failure to pay QLG’s fees.” (Id. 7:17–21.) The 12 Clients’ failure to pay the attorneys’ fees is a sufficient ground to justify withdrawal. 13 See, CA ST RPC Rule 3-700(B)(f). 14 Additionally, there is nothing in the record suggesting that QLG’s withdrawal will 15 prejudice the other litigants in this matter, will harm the administration of justice or 16 unduly delay the resolution of this case. QLG has notified and served a copy of this 17 motion on the Clients and advised them to seek alternate counsel. (Houkom Decl. [Doc. 18 31] ¶ 8.) The motion was also served on the Plaintiffs. (Cert. of Service [Doc. 31-12].) 19 To date, no opposition to the motion has been filed. 20 For all these reasons, the Court GRANTS Attorney Andres F. Quintana, Attorney 21 John M. Houkom, and the law firm of Quintana Law Group, APC’s motion to withdraw 22 as attorneys of record for Defendants Patricia Prudhomme and J6 Development, LLC 23 [Doc. 31] and ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 24 1. QLG shall ensure service of a copy of this order to Defendants Patricia 25 Prudhomme and J6 Development, LLC. 26 2. Defendants Patricia Prudhomme and J6 Development, LLC shall provide the 27 Court with their address on or before January 24, 2020. 28 1 3. As a corporation, Defendant J6 Development, LLC, cannot appear pro se in 2 federal court and must appear through licensed counsel. United States v. High Country 3 || Broad. Co.,

, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, this matter is STAYED 4 || until February 25, 2020 to allow J6 Development, LLC an opportunity to find 5 || replacement counsel. 6 Upon the expiration of the stay, this Court shall issue a ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion 7 || for default judgment against Defendant J6 Development, LLC. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: January 10, 2020 \

11 Hn. 1 omas J. Whelan 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28