Kerry Clasby v. Dragan Ivanovic, 2:18-cv-02313

Plaintiff Kerry Clasby filed suit on March 21, 2018 alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and UCL violations related to her produce business.
Clasby retained Marc Rohatiner (Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin LLP) in October 2017; the attorney-client relationship deteriorated beginning February 2019.
Rohatiner first moved to withdraw on March 7, 2019; the Court denied that motion without prejudice because trial was imminent at the time.
On August 2, 2019 the Court stayed the case pending the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex, vacating trial dates; with no trial set, Rohatiner renewed his motion to withdraw (ECF No. 133).
Rohatiner cites a permanent breakdown in the relationship, Clasby’s distrust and unresponsiveness, and unpaid fees of $157,494.98; defendants informed Rohatiner they would not oppose the withdrawal.
The Court granted the motion, ordered Rohatiner to serve Clasby with the order and file a G-01 (Proposed Order on Request for Approval of Substitution or Withdrawal) containing Clasby’s contact information within five days, and warned that withdrawal is ineffective until the G-01 is filed and that Clasby must either retain new counsel or proceed pro se and follow court rules.

Issue	Clasby (Plaintiff) Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Whether counsel has good cause to withdraw	No rebuttal in record	No opposition	Granted: breakdown in relationship and unresponsiveness constitute good cause; unpaid fees alone insufficient but considered
Whether withdrawal would prejudice other litigants or delay case	No argument presented	No opposition	Granted: no prejudice or delay because the case is stayed and no trial date exists
Whether procedural notice requirements were satisfied	No argument presented	No opposition	Granted: Rohatiner provided advanced written notice to Clasby and notified defendants
Conditions and effect of withdrawal (filing G-01; client status)	Clasby may retain counsel or proceed pro se	No opposition	Court ordered service of order, filing of G-01 with contact info within five days; withdrawal ineffective until filed; failure to comply may lead to sanctions

LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 1998) (trial court has discretion to permit counsel withdrawal)
Brandon v. Blech, 560 F.3d 536 (6th Cir. 2009) (withdrawing counsel during a stay generally poses less risk of prejudice)
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (Cal. 2018) (California Supreme Court decision whose retroactivity prompted the district court stay)