1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOANDARK KASSAB, Case No.: 3:20-cv-02422-WQH-BGS individually, and as a trustee of 12 the Kassab Family 2014 Trust, ORDER 13 and All Others Similarly Situated, 14 Plaintiff, 15 v. 16 MUFG UNION BANK, N.A., 17 Defendant. 18 HAYES, Judge: 19 The matter before the Court is the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, filed by the law 20 firms of Manfred, APC and Carlson Lynch, LLP, and attorneys Manfred P. Muecke, Todd 21 D. Carpenter, and Scott G. Braden, collectively counsel for Plaintiff Joandark Kassab (ECF 22 No. 19). 23 “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court and [t]he 24 decision to grant or deny counsel's motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of 25 the trial court.” Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 07-cv-594-WQH-NLS,

410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008). “In ruling on a motion to withdraw as counsel, 27 courts consider: (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal 28 1 || may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of 2 || justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.”

3 Movants contend that withdrawal should be granted because “good grounds for 4 || withdrawal exist under one or more grounds set forth in both the California Rules of 5 || Professional Conduct and the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional 6 || Conduct.” (ECF No. 19). Movants state that they are unable to further specify the basis 7 || for withdrawal because “revealing the facts upon which this motion is based would involve 8 ||the disclosure of privileged client confidences.” Jd. Movants contend that “the 9 ||administration of justice will not be harmed.” Jd. Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the 10 || Motion contending that there is no valid basis for withdrawal and that withdrawal would 11 ||cause prejudice and delay. (ECF No. 22). 12 Movants have not provided any “reason why withdrawal is sought,” under seal or 13 ||otherwise. As a result, the Court is unable to weigh the relevant factors to determine 14 || whether withdrawal is appropriate. See Farias v. FCM Corp., No. 10-cv-260-MJL-CAB, 15

, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2010) (denying a motion to withdraw that 16 || was premised on the attorney’s mental or physical condition without further elaboration). 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (ECF No. 19) 18 denied. 19 |} Dated: September 23, 2021 Nitta Z. A a 20 Hon, William Q. Hayes 71 United States District Court 22 23 24 25 26 27 28