Ellen Realson v. University Medical Pharmaceuticals Corporation
Filing
80
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER Denying Benjamin Rush Smith III's Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: Before the Court is Benjamin Rush Smith III's motion for leave to withdraw as counsel for Defendant University Medical Pharmaceuticals Corporation. The Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. Having considered the papers submitted in support of the motion, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice re: #78 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. 9/12/2011 Hrg Vacated. (PLEASE REVIEW DOCUMENT FOR FULL AND COMPLETE DETAILS) (lw)
<![CDATA[
O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
#78
09/12 hrg vacated
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 10-3476 PSG (FMOx)
Title
Ellen Realson v. University Medical Pharmaceuticals Corp.
Present:
Date
September 6, 2011
The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge
Wendy K. Hernandez
Deputy Clerk
Not Present
Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):
Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):
Not Present
Proceedings:
n/a
Tape No.
Not Present
(In Chambers) Order Denying Benjamin Rush Smith III’s Motion for
Leave to Withdraw as Counsel
Before the Court is Benjamin Rush Smith III’s motion for leave to withdraw as counsel
for Defendant University Medical Pharmaceuticals Corporation. The Court finds the matter
appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. Having
considered the papers submitted in support of the motion, the Court DENIES the motion without
prejudice.
I.
Background
In December 2009, Plaintiff Ellen Realson filed this consumer class action in the United
States District Court for the District of South Carolina against Defendant University Medical
Pharmaceuticals Corporation ("Defendant"). In May 2010, the case was transferred to this
district, see Dkt # 34, and shortly thereafter the Court granted the application of Benjamin Rush
Smith III (“Smith”) to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Defendant, see Dkt # 56. On August 3,
2011, Smith filed this motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant.
II.
Legal Standard
Under the local rules of the Central District, “[a]n attorney may not withdraw as counsel
except by leave of court.” L.R. 83-2.9.2.1. In considering an attorney’s request to withdraw as
counsel, courts often weigh such factors as “(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the
prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the
administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
#78
09/12 hrg vacated
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 10-3476 PSG (FMOx)
Date
Title
September 6, 2011
Ellen Realson v. University Medical Pharmaceuticals Corp.
case.” See Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 07-594, 2008 WL 410694, *2 (S.D. Cal.
2008). Thus, the Central District’s local rules also provide, for instance, that “[u]nless good
cause is shown and the ends of justice require, no substitution or relief of attorney will be
approved that will cause delay in prosecution of the case to completion.” L.R. 83-2.9.2.4.
The local rules also impose some procedural requirements. In particular, “[a]n
application for leave to withdraw must be made upon written notice given reasonably in advance
to the client and to all other parties who have appeared in the action.” L.R. 83-2.9.2.1.
Additionally, and notwithstanding the client’s continued representation by co-counsel, an
attorney requesting leave to withdraw from representing a corporation must “give written notice
to the corporation . . . of the consequences of its inability to appear pro se.” See L.R. 83-2.9.2.3.
III.
Discussion
Smith has not satisfied the substantive and procedural requirements for obtaining the
Court’s leave to withdraw as counsel. His papers fail to address, for example, whether his
withdrawal might prejudice other litigants or “cause delay in prosecution of the case to
completion.” See L.R. 83-2.9.2.4. (On this point, Smith would do well to comply with Local
Rule 7-5, which requires that motions filed in this Court be accompanied by a “brief but
complete memorandum in support thereof.” See L.R. 7-5.) Nor is there any indication that
Smith gave written notice to his client that he intended to seek leave to withdraw, let alone
written notice of the consequences of the client’s inability, as a corporation, to appear pro se.
Accordingly, the Court denies Smith’s motion without prejudice.
IV.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Benjamin Rush Smith III’s Motion for
Leave to Withdraw as Counsel WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
