The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JASON HELFRICH and VANESSA Case No.: 25-CV-224 JLS (MMP)
HELFRICH,
12
ORDER GRANTING PETER N.
Plaintiffs,
13 GREENFELD’S UNOPPOSED
v. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
14
COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR
JAMES PUNGHORST and SHARLENE
15 DEFENDANTS
SWANBERG,
16
Defendants. (ECF No. 54)
17
18 Presently before the Court is Peter N. Greenfeld’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel
19 of Record for Defendants (“Mot.,” ECF No. 54). Plaintiffs do not oppose the Motion. See
20 generally Docket.
21 “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court, and the decision
22 to grant or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial
23 court.” Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 07-CV-594-WQH (NLS), 2008 WL 410694,
24 at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008) (alterations, citations, and internal quotation marks
25 omitted); see also Civ. L.R. 83.3(g)(3). “In ruling on a motion to withdraw as counsel,
26 courts consider: (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal
27 may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of
28 justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Stanz
1 v. Brown, No. 22-CV-1164-GPC-JLB, 2025 WL 417935, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2025)
2 (citing Beard, 2008 WL 410694, at *2). “The California Rules of Professional Conduct
3 require withdrawal when an attorney’s physical condition would make effective
4 representation unreasonably difficult.” Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Golden Sunrise
5 Nutraceutical, Inc., No. 20-CV-1060-DAD-SKO, 2022 WL 673778, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar.
6 7, 2022); see Model Rules of Prof. Conduct R.1.16(a)(3).
7 Here, good cause exists to grant the Motion. Peter N. Greenfeld states that he does
8 not have the ability to represent Defendants due to multiple medical issues causing him to
9 significantly taper down his practice. Mot. at 1–2. Mr. Greenfeld says that Defendants
10 have known for months the need to retain new counsel, have “repeatedly expressed their
11 understanding of [Mr. Greenfeld’s] health issues and the need to withdraw,” and did not
12 object to the Motion. Id. at 2. The Court concludes that Mr. Greenfeld provided
13 Defendants with sufficient notice that he would withdraw and sufficient grounds exist for
14 withdrawal.
15 The Court also concludes that Mr. Greenfeld’s withdrawal would not unduly
16 prejudice the parties, harm the administration of justice, or unduly delay the resolution of
17 this case. This case is in its early stages as it continues through discovery. See generally
18 Docket. Given this early stage of litigation, “there is sufficient time for a new counsel to
19 be hired and then familiarized with the case without unduly delaying proceedings or
20 prejudicing [any Parties].” Stanz, 2025 WL 417935, at *1 (citing In re Saber, No. 21-
21 55913, 2022 WL 11592836, at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022)).
22 / / /
23 / / /
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
1 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion (ECF No. 54). The Clerk of the Court
2 || SHALL update the docket to reflect the withdrawal of Peter N. Greenfeld as counsel for
3 || Defendants. Mr. Greenfeld SHALL provide Defendants’ contact information by June 11,
4 ||2026, so the Clerk can update CM/ECF to reflect that Defendants are now proceeding pro
5
6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
7 |\Dated: June 5, 2026
9 on. Janis L. Sammartino
United States District Judge
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28