1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRANCE J. YEOMANS and CINDY Case No. 21-cv-399-MMA (MDD) YEOMANS, 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ Plaintiffs, 13 COUNSEL’S MOTION TO v. WITHDRAW 14

15 UNITED STATES, [Doc. No. 19] Defendant. 16 17 18 On February 24, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Thomas P. Valet and Jeanne Anne 19 Steffin (“Counsel”), filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiffs 20 Terrance J. Yeomans and Cindy Yeomans (“Plaintiffs”). Doc. No. 19. The motion is 21 unopposed. See Docket; see also Doc. No. 18. 22 DISCUSSION 23 “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” Darby v. 24 City of Torrance,

(C.D. Cal. 1992); see also CivLR 83.3.f.3. The 25 decision to grant or deny a motion for withdrawal is within the Court’s sound discretion, 26 and “[i]n ruling on a motion to withdraw as counsel, courts consider: (1) the reasons why 27 withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the 28 harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which 1 withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Garrett v. Ruiz, No. 11cv2540-IEG 2 (WVG),

, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013) (citation omitted). 3 Upon due consideration of Counsel’s motion and declaration, the Court finds good 4 cause for Counsel’s withdrawal. As to the first factor, Counsel argues they seek 5 withdrawal because Mr. Valet’s discussions with Plaintiffs and their family have become 6 complicated by Mr. Yeomans’s death and Ms. Yeomans’s communication abilities. 7 Doc. No. 19-1 at 3.1 Mr. Valet elaborates that his “discussions with the Yeomans family 8 have resulted in a disagreement between [them] as to how the case should be prosecuted 9 going forward.”

Specifically, Counsel asserts that the disagreements with Plaintiffs’ 10 family concern “whether and how the case should be prosecuted following Mr. Yeoman’s 11 death.”

The Court finds Counsel provides good reasons to seek withdrawal. 12 As to the second factor, Counsel argues that neither party will suffer prejudice 13 because the action “was in its legal infancy when Mr. Yeomans died,” specifically noting 14 that “[t]here are no pending deadlines that would be affected by withdrawal” and “[n]o 15 trial date has been set.”

Moreover, Counsel properly notified all parties of their intent 16 to withdraw as counsel. Doc. No. 19-2 at 2; CivLR 83.3.f.3.b. Thus, the Court finds that 17 prejudice is minimal. 18 As to the third factor, Counsel argues that withdrawal would cause no harm to the 19 administration of justice because Counsel and their offices are “not able to effectively 20 represent the interests of the Yeomans family in this matter given the current 21 disagreement between [them] of how this case should be prosecuted going forward.” 22 Doc. No. 19-1 at 3. Counsel asserts that new counsel would be better suited to represent 23 Plaintiffs “in accordance with their own views of this case.”

The Court finds the 24 third factor weighs in favor of Counsel’s motion. 25 As to the fourth factor, Counsel argues that the “case is in its legal infancy and 26 27 28 1 ||there are no deadlines established nor . . . a trial date,” so withdrawal will not cause a 2 significant delay to the action’s resolution. Doc. No. 19-1 at 3. The Court finds the 3 || fourth factor also weighs in favor of Counsel’s motion. 4 CONCLUSION 5 After reviewing the record and the reasons for withdrawal noted by Counsel, and 6 || good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Counsel’s motion to withdraw. The Court 7 |} DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to terminate Thomas P. Valet and Jeanne Anne Steffin, and 8 || their respective firms, as attorneys of record for Plaintiffs. 9 The Court further ORDERS Counsel to serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiffs. 10 || Counsel’s motion noted that Plaintiffs intend to retain new counsel. Doc. No. 19-1 at 4. 11 || The Court cautions Plaintiffs that failure to retain new counsel will result in this action 12 || continuing with them proceeding pro se. See CivLR 83.11. 13 As this case has sat idle for nearly seven months, see Doc. Nos. 12—13, and 14 || Plaintiffs were previously on notice of counsel’s intent to withdraw, see Doc. Nos. 15, 15 Plaintiffs must notify the Court if they intend to proceed pro se on or before June 9, 16 2022; alternatively, if Plaintiffs choose to retain new counsel, the new counsel must file a 17 ||notice of appearance on or before June 9, 2022. The Court then DIRECTS Plaintiffs, 18 || either pro se or through their newly retained counsel, to file a Rule 25 motion to 19 substitute a party on or before June 30, 2022. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). Defendants 20 || must file an opposition, if any, on or before July 21, 2022. Plaintiffs may file a reply, if 21 || any, on or before July 28, 2022. These dates have no bearing on the Rule 25 timeliness. 22 Rule 25 motion is not filed on or before June 30, 2022, Mr. Yeomans and his 23 ||/individual claims will be dismissed from this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: April 8, 2022 26 Mikel la-(hielter 27 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 28 United States District Judge