Mosley v. Del Toro

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IVAN MOSLEY, an individual, Case No.: 21-CV-1129 TWR (JLB) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE DONALD R. HOLBEN & ASSOCIATES, APC’S MOTION CARLOS DEL TORO, Secretary TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL of the Navy, Department of the Navy, 15 FOR PLAINTIFF IVAN MOSLEY a governmental entity; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, (ECF No. 27) 17 Defendants.

20 Presently before the Court is Donald R. Holben & Associates, APC’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Ivan Mosley (“Mot.,” ECF No. 27), which is noticed for a hearing on November 17, 2022. The Motion is predicated—without further elaboration—on a “breakdown in the attorney-client relationship[] and . . . . irreconcilable differences.” (See ECF No. 27-1 (“Mem.”) at 2; see also id. at 3–4; ECF No. 27-2 (“Holben Decl.”) ¶ 5.) Further, although no Early Neutral Evaluation conference (“ENE”) had been scheduled when the Motion was filed on October 12, 2022, (see Mem. at 3; Holben Decl.

27 ¶ 4), on October 17, 2022, the Honorable Jill L. Burkhardt set an ENE for November 30, 2022. (See ECF No. 30.)

1 Not only does the Court have insufficient information about the reason withdrawal ||is sought, see, e.g., Constr. Laborers Tr. Funds for S. Cal. Admin. v. W. Coast Structures, || Inc., No. EDCV18490JGBSPX, 2019 WL 7905891, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2019), but || allowing counsel to withdraw before the scheduled ENE might work an injustice or cause || undue delay in the proceedings. (Cf Mem. at 34 (citing Manfredi & Levine v. Super. □□□ ||66 Cal. App. 4th 1128, 1133-36 (1998)).) The Court therefore DENIES WITHOUT || PREJUDICE Donald R. Holben & Associates, APC’s Motion. Counsel may renew its || request—with proper support—following the ENE.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 || Dated: October 20, 2022 — [59 14 bre Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge