The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ASHKAN RAJAEE, Case No.: 22-CV-0895 W (MDD)
12 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY’S
13 v. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
14 KRESSES AND PIASECKI LEGAL, PC,
[DOC. 4]
et al.
15
Defendants.
16
17
18 Pending before the Court is Brown Neri Smith & Khan’s motion to withdraw as
19 attorney of record for Plaintiff Ashkan Rajaee. Plaintiff opposes the motion.
20 The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument.
21 See Civ.L.R. 7.1.d.1. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion
22 [Doc. 4].
23
24 I. DISCUSSION
25 On June 20, 2022, Brown Neri Smith & Khan (“BNSK”) filed this lawsuit on
26 behalf of Plaintiff Ashkan Rajaee. The Complaint asserts one cause of action for
27 professional negligence against Plaintiff’s former attorneys. (Compl. [Doc. 1] ¶¶ 9–12.)
28
1 Since the Complaint was filed, little activity has taken place in this case. The only
2 activity reflected on the docket is BNSK’s motion to withdraw filed on October 10, 2022
3 (Notice of Motion to Withdraw [Doc. 4]) and Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of
4 subject matter or personal jurisdiction filed on November 14, 2022 (Defs’ MTD [Doc. 8]).
5 An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court. Darby v. City
6 of Torrance, 810 F.Supp. 275, 276 (C.D.Cal.1992); Civ.L.R. 83.3.f.3. “The grant or
7 denial of an attorney’s motion to withdraw in a civil case is a matter addressed to the
8 discretion of the trial court....” Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, Inc., 694 F.2d 1081,
9 1087 (7th Cir. 1982). Factors considered in evaluating the motion are “1) the reasons
10 why withdrawal is sought; 2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; 3) the
11 harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and 4) the degree to which
12 withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” CE Resource, Inc. v. Magellan Group,
13 LLC, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D.Cal. 2009) (citing Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v.
14 Moldauer, 2009 WL 89141, at *1 (E.D.Cal. 2009)).
15 Withdrawal of counsel is governed by the standards of professional conduct
16 required of members of the State Bar of California. See Nehad v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d
17 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying California Rules of Professional Conduct to attorney
18 withdrawal). Here, BNSK seeks to withdraw under Rule 1.16(b)(4), which provides that
19 an attorney may withdraw if “the client by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult
20 for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively.” (P&A [Doc. 4-1] 3–6.) Citing
21 this rule, BNSK argues the attorney-client relationship with Plaintiff “is irreconcilably
22 broken at this point, and BNSK cannot adequately or sufficiently represent” him. (P&A
23 [Doc. 4-1] 1:3–6; Reply [Doc. 7] 2:16–19.) In his opposition, Plaintiff disputes that there
24 has been a breakdown of the relationship (Opp’n [Doc.6] 8:12–13), but then proceeds to
25 establish that the relationship is irreparably broken.
26 In his opposition, Plaintiff contends that in addition to this case, BNSK represents
27 him in a number of related complex lawsuits involving “immigration laws and
28 international laws with thousands of documents being produced in the related matters.”
1 (Opp’n 2:12–22.) It is the related cases that appear to have led to the deterioration of the
2 attorney-client relationship. While BNSK is representing Plaintiff in this case on a
3 contingency basis (id. 9:9–11), Plaintiff alleges the firm holds an “$1,000,000 secured
4 promissory note and registered lien agreement toward their fees” in the other cases. (Id.
5 2:8–9.) Plaintiff alleges that BNSK willfully misled him into providing the security and
6 “dishonestly promised, signed and secured” the line of credit. (Id. 11:9–18.) Plaintiff
7 further alleges that in September of 2022, after the “credit facility reached over $500,000
8 of the $1,000,000,” he became “concerned about the volume of billings and started
9 asking the firm for an attorney-by-attorney breakdown of my invoices.” (Id. 5:17–23.)
10 At the same time, Plaintiff alleges he began “digging into BNSK work product and
11 discovered some glaring issues in their handling of the cases.” (Id. 5:26–6:1.) In
12 particular, he contends he discovered that the “firm was missing critical documents or did
13 not review critical orders from the arbitration proceedings that resulted in great harm to
14 my case.” (Id. 5:26–6:4.)
15 Plaintiff asserts that after raising additional questions with the firm, they advised
16 him that they were “adverse” and “the firm is going to withdraw from all my cases….”
17 (Opp’n 6:11–16.) Thereafter, the firm filed motions to withdraw in the related cases, at
18 least one of which has been granted. (Reply [Doc. 7] 2:2–3.) Plaintiff further alleges that
19 the firm’s “conduct has created a near impossible scenario that only benefits and profits
20 BNSK to the tune of $1,000,000 while completely causing additional hardship and case
21 prejudice for my family.” (Opp’n. 8:5–9.) Plaintiff asserts that “BNSK’s conduct goes
22 against my understanding of public policy rules established by the State Bar of
23 California” (id. 2:6–8) and he contends he has filed a complaint against BNSK with the
24 State Bar (id. 4:6–8).
25 Plaintiff’s opposition to BNSK’s motion to dismiss establishes that there has been
26 a complete breakdown of the attorney-client relationship in the related cases and,
27 accordingly, in this case as well. Additionally, given the early posture of this case, there
28 is nothing in the record suggesting that BNSK’s withdrawal will prejudice the litigants in
1 || this matter, will harm the administration of justice or unduly delay the resolution of this
2 ||case. For these reasons, the Court will grant BNSK’s motion.
3
4 ||II. CONCLUSION & ORDER
5 For all the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS BNSK’s motion to
6 || withdraw as attorney of record for Plaintiff Ashkan Rajaee [Doc. 4] and ORDERS as
7 || follows:
8 e BNSK shall serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff Ashkan Rajaee and
9 Defendants and shall file the proof of service.
10 e On or before December 5, 2022, Plaintiff Ashkan Rayjaece shall file a notice
11 with this Court listing the mailing address for service of process.
12 ° In light of this order, the Court CONTINUES Defendants’ motion to
13 dismiss [Doc. 8] to January 23, 2023 to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to
14 find new counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants’ motion
15 to dismiss is now due on or before January 9, 2023 and Defendants’ reply is
16 due on or before January 17, 2023. Upon submission of the briefing, there
17 shall be no oral argument on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Civ.L.R.
18 7.1d1.
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
20 || Dated: November 21, 2022 \
22 Hn. 1 omas J. Whelan
23 United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28