United States v. $208,420.00 in U.S. Currency

O

United States District Court

Central District of California

1100

1111 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:20-cv-01156-ODW (RAO) 1122 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF

1133 v. RECORD [47]

1144 $208,420.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY,

1155 Defendant.

1166

1177 I. INTRODUCTION

1188 Jacek W. Lentz, counsel for Claimant Stephanie Smith, seeks to withdraw as 1199 counsel of record. (Mot. to Withdraw (“Mot.”), ECF No. 47.) For the reasons set 2200 forth below, the Court DENIES Lentz’s Motion.1

2211 II. BACKGROUND

2222 On February 5, 2020, Plaintiff United States of America (“the Government”) 2233 initiated this in rem forfeiture action against Defendant $208,420.00 in U.S. Currency. 2244 (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) In response to the Government’s forfeiture action, Smith 2255 moved for a mandatory stay pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(2). (ECF No. 23.) The 2266 Court denied Smith’s motion because she failed to establish that she was the subject 2277

2288 1 Having carefully considered the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. of any criminal investigation. (ECF No. 36.) Smith moved for reconsideration, which the Court denied. (ECF Nos. 37, 45.)

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Local Rule 83-2.3.2 requires an attorney to obtain leave from the Court to withdraw as counsel. California’s Rules of Professional Conduct generally govern an attorney’s conduct before this Court, including circumstances permitting withdrawal. L.R. 83-3.1.2. The California Rules of Professional Conduct authorize withdrawal when the client “renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(b)(4).

A motion for leave to withdraw “must be supported by good cause.” L.R. 83-2.3.2. The district court has discretion to permit or deny an attorney’s withdrawal. Huntington Learning Ctrs., Inc. v. Educ. Gateway, Inc., No. CV 09-CV- 3200 PSG (VBKx), 2009 WL 2337863, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2009).

IV. DISCUSSION

Lentz’s Motion fails for at least two reasons. First, Lentz fails to support his Motion with good cause. Lentz requests that the Court permit his withdrawal because “[Smith] and [Lentz] have irreconcilable differences with regard to case tactics and strategy and [have] experience[d] a complete breakdown in communication[,] which makes further representation impossible.” (Decl. of Jacek Lentz ¶ 2, ECF No. 47.) Beyond that vague representation, Lentz fails to provide any information detailing the extent of the “breakdown in communication” with his client or why further representation would be “impossible.” This is insufficient to demonstrate good cause to permit Lentz’s withdrawal.

Second, Smith will be prejudiced by Lentz’s withdrawal. Smith opposes Lentz’s Motion and claims that Lentz “took this matter on a contingency . . . with a large, up-front payment” and Lentz has not agreed to return that payment. (Opp’n 4, ECF No. 53.) Smith also contends that the fact discovery cutoff in this case in November 15, 2021, and Lentz is still in possession of her client file. (Id.) Smith argues that in light of these facts, Lentz’s withdrawal will make it unreasonably difficult to find a new attorney and conduct discovery before the upcoming deadline. Ud.) The Court agrees with Smith and finds that Lentz’s withdrawal would be prejudicial.

Vv. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Lentz’s Motion to Withdraw. (ECF No. 47.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 6, 2021 a . es Bf

Yi, Ci

OTIS D. GHT, II Is UNITED STATESDISTRICT JUDGE }