1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADAM WEITSMAN; UPSTATE Case No.: 19-CV-461 JLS (AHG) SHREDDING, LLC, a New York limited 12 liability company; WEITSMAN ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 13 SHREDDING, LLC, a New York limited ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO liability company; and WEITSMAN WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY 14 RECYCLING, LLC, a New York limited 15 liability company, (ECF No. 178) 16 Plaintiffs, 17 v. 18 ROBERT ARTHUR LEVESQUE, III, 19 Defendant. 20 21 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ attorney Richard S. Hartunian’s Motion to 22 Withdraw as Plaintiffs’ Counsel (“Mot.,” ECF No. 178). Mr. Hartunian states that as of 23 April 11, 2025, he is no longer affiliated with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP (“Manatt”), 24 the law firm representing Plaintiffs Adam Weitsman; Upstate Shredding, LLC; Weitsman 25 Shredding, LLC; and Weitsman Recycling, LLC. Mot. at 2. Mr. Hartunian further 26 explains that Donald Brown and Misa Eiritz from Manatt will continue to serve as counsel 27 of record for Plaintiffs. Id. 28 “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” Lopez v. Glob. 1 || Bus. Consultants., No. 20-cv-1281-AJB (LL),

, at *1 (S.D. Cal Jan. 15, 2 || 2021) (citing Darby v. City of Torrance,

(C.D. Cal. 1992)). A motion 3 || for leave to withdraw as counsel must be supported by a showing of “good cause.” Lopez, 4 ||

, at *1. Courts consider the following when determining whether good 5 || cause exists: “(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may 6 ||cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of 7 || justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Jd. 8 (citation omitted). Finally, Civil Local Rule 83.3(f)(3) requires that the motion to withdraw 9 counsel be served on the opposing party and on the moving attorney’s client, and that a 10 || declaration regarding such service be filed with the motion. 11 The Court finds good cause exists for Mr. Hartunian’s withdrawal and that his 12 || withdrawal presents no prejudice to other litigants or risk of harm to the administration of 13 ||justice. Even after Mr. Hartunian’s departure from Manatt, Plaintiff will continue to be 14 ||represented by two other attorneys of record at Manatt. Additionally, Mr. Hartunian has 15 ||demonstrated compliance with Civil Local Rule 83.3(f)(3). In his Declaration, he states 16 |/that Plaintiffs and Defendant have been served with the Motion to Withdraw and 17 || Declaration. See ECF No. 178-1 9 4. 18 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 19 1. Good cause appearing, Mr. Hartunian’s Motion to Withdraw as counsel for 20 Plaintiffs (ECF No. 178) is GRANTED. 21 2. Manatt shall serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiffs within fourteen (14) days of 22 the date of this Order. 23 3. The Clerk of Court SHALL update the docket to reflect the withdrawal of Mr. 24 Hartunian as counsel for Plaintiffs in this case. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: May 5, 2025 hace ot J, om waited on. Janis L. Sammartino 3g United States District Judge