1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAJID AHMADI, Case No.: 19CV435-GPC(KSC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. WITHDRAW AS PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL 14 MERCEDES BENZ USA, LLC, a

Delaware Limited Liability Company; and 15 [Dkt. No. 17.] DOES 1-100, inclusive, 16 Defendant. 17

18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel. (Dkt. No. 19 17.) Defendant filed an opposition. (Dkt. No. 19.) A telephonic hearing was held on 20 March 20, 2020. (Dkt. No. 24.) At the hearing, Plaintiff appeared as well as his counsel 21 Larry Sidiropoulos, Esq. and Matthew Rogers, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendant. 22 Based on the reasoning below, the Court GRANTS the motion to withdraw as Plaintiff’s 23 counsel. 24 Discussion 25 “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” Darby v. 26 City of Torrance,

(C.D. Cal. 1992). The trial court has discretion 27 whether to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw in a civil case. See La Grand 28 1 v. Stewart,

, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998); Stewart v. Boeing Co., No. CV 12-5621 2 RSWL(AGRx),

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2013). Courts should 3 consider the following factors when ruling upon a motion to withdraw as counsel: (1) the 4 reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other 5 litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the 6 degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case. Curtis v. Illumination 7 Arts, Inc., No. C12-0991JLR,

, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 12, 2014); Deal 8 v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. C09-01643 SBA,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 9 Sept. 15, 2010). Rule 3-700 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct of the State 10 Bar of California provides that an attorney may request a withdrawal if it is unreasonably 11 difficult for counsel to carry out his employment effectively or breaches an agreement as 12 to expenses or fees. Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(C). 13 Local Civil Rule 83.3(f)(3) also provides: 14 Withdrawals. (a) A notice of motion to withdraw as attorney of record must be served on the adverse party and on the moving attorney's client. (b) A 15 declaration pertaining to such service must be filed. Failure to make service 16 as required by this section or to file the required declaration of service will result in a denial of the motion. 17

18 Local Civil R. 83.3(f)(3). Plaintiff’s counsel has filed a declaration indicating the motion 19 was mailed to Plaintiff and informed opposing counsel of the withdrawal. (Dkt. No. 17- 20 2, Sidiropoulos Decl. ¶¶ 14, 15.) According to Plaintiff’s counsel, communications have 21 broken down with Plaintiff to the point where it is no longer possible for the Sidiropoulos 22 Law Firm, APC to continue to effectively represent Plaintiff’s interest in the case. 23 Plaintiff refuses to comply with the advice of counsel concerning this litigation and 24 unwilling to comply with terms of the retainer agreement by failing to pay for expert 25 costs. (Id. ¶¶ 3-6, 9, 11.) Moreover, around September 2019, Plaintiff agreed that he no 26 longer wanted Plaintiff’s counsel to represent him. (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff’s counsel also 27 argues there will be no prejudice as all evidence have been preserved, the case is less than 28 1 || thirteen months old and there is sufficient time for Plaintiff to secure new counsel to 2 || become familiar with the case. Finally, withdrawal would not cause any harm to the 3 || administration of justice and would not cause substantial delay in the case. Finally, 4 || Plaintiff’s counsel seeks to stay the action for 90 days in order for Plaintiff to secure new 5 || counsel. 6 Defendant does not oppose the withdrawal of counsel but objects to Plaintiffs 7 || counsel’s representation that defense counsel is amenable to extending the deadline for 8 || fact discovery. Defense counsel is amenable to an extension of time of the expert 9 || discovery deadline but not the fact discovery deadline.! 10 Based on the factors outlined above, the Court finds that withdrawal of Plaintiff's 11 ||/counsel should be granted as Plaintiff has indicated he does not want the Sidiropoulos 12 || Law Firm, APC representing him and Plaintiff has made it “unreasonably difficult for 13 counsel to carry out his employment effectively.” Therefore, withdrawal of counsel is 14 || granted. 15 Conclusion 16 Based on the above, the Court GRANTS the motion to withdraw as counsel for 17 || Plaintiff. Plaintiff is granted 60 days to retain counsel. The Court sets a status 18 || conference on May 22, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2D. The Court further stays any 19 ||remaining deadlines in the case by 60 days. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 || Dated: March 20, 2020 =<

93 United States District Judge 24 25 |} 27 ||! On March 9, 2020, Magistrate Judge Crawford extended fact discovery until April 1, 2020 for the sole 3g || purpose of completing Plaintiff's Rule 35 medical examination. (Dkt. No. 21.) On March 11, 2020, the Magistrate Judge granted the parties’ joint motion to extend expert discovery deadlines. (Dkt. No. 22.)