1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JANE DOE NOS. 60 through 121 Case No.: 23-cv-1821-WQH-KSC inclusive, individuals, 11 ORDER Plaintiffs, 12 v. 13 AYLO MEDIA S.A.R.L., (f/k/a 14 “MindGeek S.a.r.l.”) a foreign 15 entity; AYLO FREESITES, LTD., (f/k/a “MG Freesites, Ltd.” and 16 d/b/a “PornHub,” “YouPorn,” 17 “RedTube,” and “Tube8”) a foreign entity; AYLO BILLING US 18 CORP., (f/k/a “MG Billing US 19 Corp.” and d/b/a “ProBiller”) a Delaware corporation; 9219-1568 20 QUEBEC, INC., a foreign entity; 21 and AYLO HOLDINGS S.A.R.L.,

22 Defendants. 23 HAYES, Judge: 24 The matter before the Court is the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record (ECF 25 No. 34) filed by counsel for Defendants, Michael T. Zeller, Diane Cafferata, Robert 26 Becher, and Michelle Wang of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (collectively, 27 “Quinn Emanuel”). 28 1 “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court, and the decision 2 ||to grant or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial 3 ||court.” Urias v. Labcorp Peri-Approval & Commercialization Inc., No. 23-CV-1815 JLS 4 ||(MSB),

, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2023) (citation omitted); see also 5 || United States v. Carter,

(9th Cir. 2009); S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. □□□□□□□□□□ 6 || (requiring that a notice of motion to withdraw as attorney of record be served on the adverse 7 || party and on the moving attorney’s client, along with a declaration of service). 8 In ruling on a motion to withdraw as counsel, courts consider: (1) the reasons 9 why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; 10 and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case. Leatt Corp. v. Innovative Safety Tech., LLC, No. 09-CV-1301-IEG POR,

, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2010) (citation omitted). 13 Quinn Emanuel asserts in the Motion that “Defendants consent to the withdrawal of Quinn Emanuel, and will continue to be represented in this action by Mitchell Silberberg 15 & Knupp as counsel of record.” (ECF No. 34 at 2.) Quinn Emanuel also asserts that 16 granting the Motion “[will] not delay this proceeding” or “prejudice any party.” /d. The iM Motion includes a declaration stating that copies of the Motion have been served on all 18 parties as required by Local Rule 83.3(f)(3). (ECF No. 34-1 at 2.) The Court finds that good 19 cause exists to grant withdrawal. 20 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record 7! (ECF No. 34) is granted. 22 Dated: September 25, 2024 Kio 23 bi a Le 24 United States District Court 25 26 27 28