1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ENGRACIA HERNANDEZ-GARCIA, Case No.: 21-cv-1673-JAH-DDL

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

14 ISAAC PENHOS DANA, ESTER [Dkt. No. 114] SUTTON DE SACAL, SAMUEL 15 PENHOS, ALICIA SACAL DE 16 PENHOS, 17 Defendants. 18 19 I. 20 BACKGROUND 21 On August 4, 2023, Plaintiff’s attorney Benjamin R. Botts filed a motion to withdraw 22 as Plaintiff’s counsel (“Motion”). Dkt. No. 114. Mr. Botts states that after August 4, 2023, 23 he will cease to be employed by Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc. (“CDM”), one 24 of two law firms representing Plaintiff. Mr. Botts further explains that Plaintiff will 25 continue to be represented by all other attorneys of record at CDM and the law firm of 26 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP (“WilmerHale”). Good cause appearing, the 27 Motion is GRANTED. 28 / / / 1 II. 2 LEGAL STANDARD 3 “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” Lopez v. 4 Global Bus. Consultants., No. 20-cv-1281-AJB (LL),

, at *1 (S.D. Cal 5 Jan. 15, 2021) (citing Darby v. City of Torrance,

(C.D. Cal. 1992)). 6 A motion for leave to withdraw as counsel must be supported by a showing of “good 7 cause.” Lopez,

, at *1. Courts consider the following when determining 8 whether good cause exists: “(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice 9 withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the 10 administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution 11 of the case.”

(citing Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 07-cv-594 WQH (NLS), 12

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 13 Civil Local Rule 83.3.f.3 requires that the motion to withdraw as counsel be served 14 on the opposing party and on the moving attorney’s client, and that a declaration regarding 15 such service be filed with the motion. 16 III. 17 DISCUSSION 18 Mr. Botts seeks to withdraw because he will no longer be employed at CDM, one of 19 the law firms representing Plaintiff as of August 4, 2023. The Court finds good cause for 20 Mr. Botts’s withdrawal and that his withdrawal presents no prejudice to other litigants or 21 risk of harm to the administration of justice. Even after Mr. Botts’s departure from CDM, 22 Plaintiff will continue to be represented by three other attorneys of record at CDM in 23 addition to six other attorneys of record from WilmerHale. Moreover, the parties are in 24 the process of finalizing a settlement agreement as to all claims and all parties and are 25 expected to move for dismissal thereafter. For the same reasons, there is no risk that Mr. 26 Botts’s withdrawal will cause any delay in final resolution of the action. 27 Finally, Mr. Botts has demonstrated compliance with Civil Local Rule 83.3.f.3. In 28 a Declaration of Service, Mr. Botts states that the Motion was sent to Plaintiff via 1 || WhatsApp, and that all other counsel of record have been notified of the Motion via the 2 || CM/ECF system. 3 IV. 4 CONCLUSION 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds good cause to permit Mr. Botts’s 6 || withdrawal from the case. The Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 7 1. Good cause appearing, Mr. Botts’s Motion to withdraw as counsel for 8 Plaintiff is GRANTED. 9 2. CDM shall serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff on or before August 14, 10 2023. 11 |} IS SO ORDERED. 12 || Dated: August 7, 2023 _—_—

14 “Hon. DavidD.Leshner □□□ 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28