Facts
- On November 30, 2024, the Mavrick Law Firm Attorneys filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Kimera Labs Inc. [lines="18"].
- The reasons given for withdrawal include that Kimera has made it "unreasonably difficult for counsel to carry out their representation effectively" [lines="39-40"].
- The court has the discretion to grant or deny motions for attorney withdrawal, considering factors such as the reasons for withdrawal and potential prejudice to other litigants [lines="28-34"].
- The Court denied the Mavrick Law Firm Attorneys' motion without prejudice, requiring further factual support for the request [lines="46-48"].
- The attorneys were instructed to clarify whether other associated attorneys join in the request for withdrawal [lines="55-56"].
Issues
- Whether the Mavrick Law Firm Attorneys provided sufficient justification for their motion to withdraw as counsel. [lines="28"]
- Whether granting the withdrawal would cause undue prejudice or delay in the resolution of the case. [lines="29-34"]
Holdings
- The motion to withdraw was denied without prejudice due to insufficient factual support regarding the necessity of withdrawal [lines="46-48"].
- The Court emphasized that attorneys must substantiate their withdrawal request adequately, considering the potential impact on the administration of justice. [lines="33-34"]
OPINION
Case Information
*1 Case 3:21-cv-02137-MMA-DDL Document 363 Filed 12/02/24 PageID.6943 Page 1
of 2
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KIMERA LABS INC., Case No. 21-cv-2137-MMA-DDL Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RAJ JAYASHANKAR, et al., RECORD FOR KIMERA LABS INC Defendants.
[Doc. No. 361]
On November 30, 2024, Plaintiff Kimera Labs Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) attorneys Peter T. Mavrick, Esq., Jacob M. Resnick, Esq., Karen Lowell, Esq., and the Mavrick Law Firm (collectively, the “Mavrick Law Firm Attorneys”) filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff. Doc No. 361.
“An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” Darby v. City of Torrance , 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992); see also CivLR 83.3(f)(3). The decision to grant or deny a motion for withdrawal is within the court’s discretion, and courts consider the following factors: “(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might
-1- 21-cv-2137-MMA-DDL *2 Case 3:21-cv-02137-MMA-DDL Document 363 Filed 12/02/24 PageID.6944 Page 2
of 2 1 cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Garrett v. Ruiz , No. 11cv2540-IEG (WVG), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8053, 2013 WL 163420, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013).
Here, the Mavrick Law Firm Attorneys explain that Kimera has “made it unreasonably difficult for counsel to carry out their representation effectively,” but do not otherwise support their request for withdrawal. Doc. No. 361 at 2. Consequently, the Court DENIES their motion without prejudice to renewal upon a sufficient showing of entitlement to the relief they seek. Namely, should the Mavrick Law Firm Attorneys renew their request, they must provide adequate factual support (without breaching the attorney-client privilege) in support of their request. Additionally, because the Mavrick Law Firm Attorneys suggest that withdrawal would render Plaintiff pro se , they must provide clarification on whether Olivia Retenauer, of Mavrick Law Firm, and Jon F. Cieslak, of Bona Law PC, also join in their request for withdrawal.
IT IS SO ORDERED . Dated: December 2, 2024 _____________________________
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge -2- 21-cv-2137-MMA-DDL