Bragg v. Bragg et al

1
3:25-cv-02602-WQH-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID BRAGG, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARTHA BRAGG, an individual;
MASK U.S., INC., a California
Corporation; and DOES 1–20,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-02602-WQH-MMP
ORDER
HAYES, Judge:
On October 1, 2025, Plaintiff David Bragg (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against
Defendants Martha Bragg, MASK U.S., Inc. (“MASK U.S.”), and Does 1–20. (ECF No.
1.)
On November 5, 2025, Defendant Martha Bragg filed an Answer. (ECF No. 5.)
On 	February 	27, 	2026, 	Defendant 	MASK 	U.S.’s 	counsel 	filed 	a Notice 	of
Withdrawal of Counsel stating that Hoffman & Forde, Attorneys at Law “hereby withdraws
as counsel of record for Defendant MASK U.S., Inc., effective upon the Court’s approval.”
(ECF No. 12 at 1–2.) The Court construes the Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel (ECF No.
12) as a motion to withdraw as counsel.
Case 3:25-cv-02602-WQH-MMP Document 14 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
3:25-cv-02602-WQH-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court, and the decision
to grant or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial
court.” Urias v. Labcorp Peri-Approval & Commercialization Inc., No. 23-CV-1815 JLS
(MSB), 2023 WL 8845384, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2023) (citation omitted); see also
United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009). In evaluating a motion to
withdraw, courts consider: (1) the reasons for withdrawal; (2) the potential prejudice to
other litigants; (3) the “harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and
(4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Leatt Corp. v.
Innovative Safety Tech., LLC, No. 09-CV-1301-IEG POR, 2010 WL 444708, at *1 (S.D.
Cal. Feb. 2, 2010) (citation omitted).
Counsel does not provide reasons for withdrawal. The Court finds limited risk of
prejudice to other litigants, as the Court is not aware of any settlement discussions between
the parties and no substantive motions have been filed. However, the Court notes that an
Early Neutral Evaluation conference is scheduled for March, 9, 2026 before Magistrate
Judge Michelle M. Pettit. (ECF No. 11.) The Court finds only limited risk of delay or harm
to the administration of justice because this case remains in an early stage. Accordingly,
the Court finds good cause to grant the motion to withdraw as counsel.
However, corporations “may appear in court only through an attorney.” Civ. L.R.
83.3(j); In re Am. West Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). Counsel
reports that “Hoffman & Forde has provided or will provide reasonable notice to MASK
U.S., Inc. and will take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice, including promptly
surrendering client papers and property and refunding any unearned fees as applicable,
consistent with governing rules.” (ECF No. 12 at 2.) Counsel does not, however, report
that Defendant MASK U.S. has been able to secure new representation. Id. The Court
concludes 	that 	more 	time 	is 	required 	to 	allow 	Defendant 	MASK 	U.S. 	to 	secure
representation. Ewing v. Gitre, No. 24-CV-1213-AGS-DDL, 2025 WL 1425551, at *1
(S.D. 	Cal. 	May 	16, 	2025) 	(giving 	30 	days 	to 	a 	corporate 	defendant 	to 	secure
Case 3:25-cv-02602-WQH-MMP Document 14 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
3:25-cv-02602-WQH-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
representation); Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Global Fin. Support, Inc., No. 14-CV-
2400-GPC-WVG, 2019 WL 3068232, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 12, 2019) (same).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel (ECF No. 12)
is granted pursuant to the following conditions. Dalia Ella Astalos and Michael Drew Dicks
of Hoffman & Forde, Attorneys at Law shall be withdrawn as counsel for Defendant
MASK U.S. upon the issuance of a subsequent Order thirty (30) days from the filing of
this Order and may be withdrawn earlier if alternative counsel for the corporate defendant
files a notice of appearance before thirty (30) days has expired. Counsel Dalia Ella Astalos
and Michael Drew Dicks continue to represent Defendant Martha Bragg. (See ECF No. 12
at 2.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than seven (7) days from the entry of this
Order, counsel from Hoffman & Forde, Attorneys at Law shall file a certificate of service
indicating that they have served Defendant MASK U.S. with a copy of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant MASK U.S. shall have thirty (30) days
from the date of this Order to retain new counsel, and for such counsel to file a notice of
appearance.
Dated: March 5, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-02602-WQH-MMP Document 14 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3