The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12 FRESHPOINT ATLANTA, INC., et al., Case No. 20-cv-1065-MMA-DTF
13 Plaintiffs,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
14 v. MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE
COUNSEL
15 JOHN W. HAYWOOD, et al.,
16 Defendants. [Doc. No. 32]
17
18
19 On September 5, 2025, Plaintiffs Freshpoint Atlanta, Inc., Freshpoint Central
20 California, Inc., Freshpoint Central Florida, Inc., Freshpoint Denver, Inc., Freshpoint
21 Southern California, Inc., Freshpoint South Florida, Inc., Premier Produce of South
22 Florida, LLC, and Willie Itule Produce, Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a motion, ex
23 parte, to substitute the Law Office of William P. Fennell, A.P.L.C. (“Fennell Law”), as
24 their counsel of record, in place of Dean T. Kirby, Jr. (“Mr. Kirby”). Doc. No. 32 at 1–2.
25 Plaintiffs indicate that lead counsel, Mr. Gregory A Brown, appearing pro hac vice, will
26 remain as counsel. Id. at 2. Defendants John W. Haywood, Donald Breen, Robert
27 Allbritton, Duncan Evans, Joanne Ochsman, and Erin Donofrio (collectively
28 “Defendants”) filed no response.
1 An attorney may not withdraw as counsel of record except by leave of the court.
2 Darby v. City of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992). The “decision to
3 grant or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial
4 court.” Westhoff Vertriebsges mbH v. Berg, No. 22-CV-0938-BAS-SBC, 2024 WL
5 947803 *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2024) (quoting Garrett v. Ruiz, No. 11-CV-2540-IEG
6 WVG, 2013 WL 163420 *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
7 Civil Rule 83.3.f requires that a party seeking to substitute counsel “must appear in
8 person or appoint another attorney by a written substitution of attorney signed by the
9 party, the attorney ceasing to act, and the newly appointed attorney, or by a written
10 designation filed in the case and served upon the attorney ceasing to act, unless attorney
11 is deceased, in which event the designation of a new attorney will so state.” CivLR
12 83.3.f.2.
13 As to the local rules, Plaintiffs’ proposed new counsel, William P. Fennell and
14 Hala Hammi of the Law Offices of William P. Fennell, A.P.L.C., submit the following
15 signatures consenting to their substitution in as counsel for Plaintiffs: (1) Mark Krane, Sr.
16 Director of Credit and Collections for Freshpoint Atlanta, Inc.;1 (2) Jim Chlebogiannis,
17 President of Premier Produce Central Florida, LLC; and (3) William Itule, President of
18 Willie Itule Produce, Inc. Doc. No. 32 at 3–5. Mr. Fennell Likewise affirms that he
19 accepts the substitution. Id. Plaintiffs indicate, however, that they have not served the
20 motion on Mr. Kirby, as his “licensing status with the State Bar of California is not
21 ‘eligible to practice law.’” Id. at 2. Rule 83.3, however, specifies the only circumstance
22 upon which the attorney to be replaced need not be served: death. CivLR 83.3.f.2.
23 Nevertheless, the Court’s CM/ECF system indicates that a notice of electronic service
24
25
26
1 The motion indicates that “Freshpoint Atlanta, Inc., signs and consents to this substitution for its
27 cooperative entities: Freshpoint Central California, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Freshpoint Central
Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation; Freshpoint Denver, Inc., a Colorado corporation; and Freshpoint
28
1 || was sent to Mr. Kirby upon the motion’s filing. See Doc. No. 32. Thus, Plaintiffs have
2 || effectively complied with the local civil rules.
3 As to Mr. Kirby’s withdrawal, Plaintiffs seek to substitute him because he is no
4 || longer able to practice law in California.2 Doc. No. 32 at 2. The Court takes judicial
5 || notice that the California State Bar websites indicates that Mr. Kirby’s current status is
6 ||“resigned.”* The Court may take judicial notice of information on government websites
7 || and “official acts” of government agencies. See Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA,
8 || Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006); Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d
9 11992, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2010); Gallagher v. Philipps, 563 F. Supp. 3d 1048, 1070-71 (S.D.
10 2021); Greenfield MHP Assocs., L.P. v. Ametek, Inc., 145 F. Supp. 3d 1000, 1007
11 |/(S.D. Cal. 2015). As the case is stayed pending resolution of Garden Fresh Restaurants
12 || _LLC’s bankruptcy proceeding, Doc. No. 27 at 11, and Defendants filed no opposition to
13 ||the motion, the Court finds there is no risk of prejudice to Defendants, undue delay,
14 || injustice, or any other factor weighing against substitution.
15 Upon due consideration, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the motion to
16 substitute counsel and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to update the docket accordingly.
17 || Further, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to serve a copy of this Order on all interested parties
18 the Bankruptcy proceeding.
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
20 || Dated: September 9, 2025 a Mbt ah Vu □□ kts
21 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
22 United States District Judge
23
24
25
26 ||
27 ||? Plaintiffs indicate that Mr. Kirby is “unable to consent to this substitution in writing” for that same
28 atipelapps-calbar.ca sovlattorney/Licensee/Detail/901 14