The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ADAM WEITSMAN; UPSTATE Case No.: 19-CV-461 JLS (AHG)
SHREDDING, LLC, a New York limited
12
liability company; WEITSMAN ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
13 SHREDDING, LLC, a New York limited ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO
liability company; and WEITSMAN WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY
14
RECYCLING, LLC, a New York limited
15 liability company, (ECF No. 178)
16 Plaintiffs,
17 v.
18 ROBERT ARTHUR LEVESQUE, III,
19 Defendant.
20
21 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ attorney Richard S. Hartunian’s Motion to
22 Withdraw as Plaintiffs’ Counsel (“Mot.,” ECF No. 178). Mr. Hartunian states that as of
23 April 11, 2025, he is no longer affiliated with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP (“Manatt”),
24 the law firm representing Plaintiffs Adam Weitsman; Upstate Shredding, LLC; Weitsman
25 Shredding, LLC; and Weitsman Recycling, LLC. Mot. at 2. Mr. Hartunian further
26 explains that Donald Brown and Misa Eiritz from Manatt will continue to serve as counsel
27 of record for Plaintiffs. Id.
28 “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” Lopez v. Glob.
1 || Bus. Consultants., No. 20-cv-1281-AJB (LL), 2021 WL 148064, at *1 (S.D. Cal Jan. 15,
2 || 2021) (citing Darby v. City of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992)). A motion
3 || for leave to withdraw as counsel must be supported by a showing of “good cause.” Lopez,
4 ||2021 WL 148064, at *1. Courts consider the following when determining whether good
5 || cause exists: “(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may
6 ||cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of
7 || justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Jd.
8 (citation omitted). Finally, Civil Local Rule 83.3(f)(3) requires that the motion to withdraw
9 counsel be served on the opposing party and on the moving attorney’s client, and that a
10 || declaration regarding such service be filed with the motion.
11 The Court finds good cause exists for Mr. Hartunian’s withdrawal and that his
12 || withdrawal presents no prejudice to other litigants or risk of harm to the administration of
13 ||justice. Even after Mr. Hartunian’s departure from Manatt, Plaintiff will continue to be
14 ||represented by two other attorneys of record at Manatt. Additionally, Mr. Hartunian has
15 ||demonstrated compliance with Civil Local Rule 83.3(f)(3). In his Declaration, he states
16 |/that Plaintiffs and Defendant have been served with the Motion to Withdraw and
17 || Declaration. See ECF No. 178-1 9 4.
18 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
19 1. Good cause appearing, Mr. Hartunian’s Motion to Withdraw as counsel for
20 Plaintiffs (ECF No. 178) is GRANTED.
21 2. Manatt shall serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiffs within fourteen (14) days of
22 the date of this Order.
23 3. The Clerk of Court SHALL update the docket to reflect the withdrawal of Mr.
24 Hartunian as counsel for Plaintiffs in this case.
25 IT IS SO ORDERED.
26 Dated: May 5, 2025 hace ot J, om waited
on. Janis L. Sammartino
3g United States District Judge