Opinion

Runyon v. FCA US, LLC

Court
District Court, S.D. California
Filed
Mar 6, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 34.3%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10

PATRICK RUNYON, Case No.: 24-cv-01843-H-VET

11

Plaintiff,

12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

v. WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR

13

PLAINTIFF PATRICK RUNYON

FCA US, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10,

14

inclusive,

15 Defendants.

16 [Doc. No. 16.]

17

On February 7, 2025, Strategic Legal Practices, APC (“SLP”), counsel for Plaintiff

18

Patrick Runyon in this action, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Runyon.

19

(Doc. No. 16.) Defendant FCA US, LLC did not file a timely response to SLP’s motion.

20

See Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2). For the reasons below, the Court grants SLP’s motion to

21

withdraw.

22

Rule 1.16(b) of the ABA rules governs permissive withdrawals of counsel and

23

provides that “a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if . . . the representation

24

will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered

25

unreasonably difficult by the client.”1 Model Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 1.16(b)(6) (Am.

26

27

28

1 SPC’s motion cites to the California Rules of Professional Conduct, not the ABA rules. (Doc. No. 16 at

1 Bar. Ass’n 2020). Rule 1.16(c) further provides: “A lawyer must comply with applicable

2 law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation.” Id.

3 r. 1.16(c).

4 “In federal court, ‘[a]n attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of

5 court, and the decision to grant or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the

6 discretion of the trial court.’” Westhoff Vertriebsges mbH v. Berg, No. 22-CV-0938-BAS-

7 SBC, 2024 WL 947803, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2024). “To determine whether counsel

8 should be allowed to withdraw, courts consider ‘(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought;

9 (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might

10 cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay

11 the resolution of the case.’” In re Saber, No. 21-55913, 2022 WL 11592836, at *1 (9th

12 Cir. Oct. 20, 2022) (quoting Williams v. Cnty. of Fresno, 562 F. Supp. 3d 1032, 1035 (E.D.

13 Cal. 2021)). Under the Court’s Civil Local Rules, a motion to withdraw must: (1) be served

14 on the adverse party and moving attorney’s client; and (2) include a declaration pertaining

15 to service of the motion. S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 83.3(f)(3). “Failure to make service as

16 required . . . or to file the required declaration of service will result in a denial of the

17 motion.” Id.

18 As an initial matter, SLP’s motion to withdraw complies with the Court’s Civil Local

19 Rules. SLP attached a declaration to its motion stating that Defendant FCA US, LLC was

20 served with the motion via the Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system and Plaintiff

21 Runyon was served with the motion to withdraw via email and express mail. (See Doc.

22 No. 16, Tirmizi Decl. ¶ 8.) This is sufficient to comply with Civil Local Rule 83.3(f)(3).

23 Turning to the merits of the motion, SLP has provided the Court with a declaration

24 from attorney Rabiya Tirmizi stating that SLP has not been able to establish contact with

25

26

California. See Stanz v. Brown, No. 3:22-CV-01164-GPC-JLB, 2024 WL 4267191, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Cal.

27

Sept. 23, 2024); Suarez v. Del Toro, No. 22-CV-0021-GPC-BLM, 2023 WL 149105, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan.

28 10, 2023); see also Radcliffe v. Hernandez, 818 F.3d 537, 541 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]he Ninth Circuit refers

1 Plaintiff Runyon since December 3, 2024, despite numerous attempts via phone and email.

2 (See Doc. No. 16, Tirmizi Decl. ¶¶ 2, 7.) SLP’s inability to communicate with its client

3 has forced it to seek multiple continuances for the required Early Neutral Evaluation and

4 Case Management Conference scheduled in this action. (See Doc. No. 16 at 5–6; Doc.

5 Nos. 8, 12.) SLP asserts that its inability to communicate with its client makes it

6 “impossible to continue representing Plaintiff.” (Doc. No. 16 at 6.) This is a sufficient

7 reason to permit SLP to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Runyon. See Model Rules of

8 Pro. Conduct r. 1.16(b)(6); see also Cal. Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 1.16(b)(4)–(5).

9 Defendant FCA US, LLC, did not file a response to SLP’s motion to withdraw, so it does

10 not appear that permitting the withdrawal would harm Defendant. And, considering that

11 this case is in its early stages, the withdrawal will not unnecessarily delay resolution of this

12 case or harm the administration of justice.

13 For the reasons above, the Court grants SLP’s motion to withdraw. Strategic Legal

14 Practices, APC—including attorneys Elizabeth LaRocque, Rabiya Tirmizi, Tionna

15 Carvalho, and Sanam Vaziri—is withdrawn as counsel of record for Plaintiff Patrick

16 Runyon in this action. The Court orders the Clerk of Court to terminate Ms. LaRoque, Ms.

17 Tirmizi, Ms. Carvalho, and Ms. Vaziri as counsel of record for Plaintiff Runyon from the

18 CM/ECF docket.

19 SLP must file a notice providing the Court with Plaintiff Runyon’s phone number,

20 email address, and last known physical mailing address within seven (7) days from the

21 date of this order. In addition, within seven (7) days from the date this order, SPC

22 must provide Plaintiff Runyon via mail and email with: (1) a copy of this order and (2) the

23 following links along with an advisement that if he decides to represent himself and

24 proceed pro se in this civil action, he must file a motion for leave to electronically file (e-

25 file) documents in order to electronically file documents in this civil action. See

26 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Prose/Prose-FilingInfo.aspx;

27 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/ProSe.aspx

28

1 The Court schedules a telephonic status conference for Monday, April 7, 2025 at

2 ||10:30 a.m. SLP must appear at the status conference. The Court will vacate the status

3 ||conference if SPC files a declaration beforehand stating that SPC has satisfied all the

4 || requirements set forth above.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 || DATED: March 6, 2025 | | | ul | | |

MARILYN 2. HUFF, Distri ge

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.