Belliard v. American Airlines, Inc. et al

1
25cv0884-W-BJW
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
JOSIE BELLIARD, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendant.
Case No.: 25cv0884-W-BJW
ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY’S
MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
[DOC. 18]
Before the Court is Jurewitz Law Group’s (“Jurewitz”) motion to withdraw as
attorney of record for Plaintiff Josie Belliard (“Plaintiff”). (Doc. 18.) Jurewitz states that
Plaintiff and Defendant American Airlines (“Defendant”) will not be opposing the
motion. (Id. at 2.) The hearing date set for January 12, 2026, is VACATED1. The Court
decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See CivLR
7.1(d)(1). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED [Doc. 18].
1 In light of Jurewitz’s motion and accompanying exhibits, the Court finds good cause to decide this
motion before the hearing date to avoid unnecessary delay.
Case 3:25-cv-00884-RBM-BJW Document 19 Filed 12/16/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 4

2
25cv0884-W-BJW
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
I. 	F ACTUAL BACKGROUND
On April 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court against Defendant.
(Complaint [Doc. 1].) Plaintiff was a passenger on an American Airlines flight and fell on
the way to the bathroom due to a blanket being in the aisle. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant breached its duty of care and was negligent by failing to warn or remove the
dangerous condition. (Id.) On July 17, 2025, Defendant answered the complaint. (Answer
[Doc. 4].) On October 15, 2025, Magistrate Judge Brian White conducted an early neutral
evaluation and case management conference. (Doc. 14.) The case did not settle, and a
scheduling order was entered. (Docs. 14, 15.) On November 10, 2025, Jurewitz filed a
consent order form for substitution of attorney. (See Doc. 16.) The Court, however, struck
the document since withdrawing as counsel generally requires a fully briefed motion.
(Doc. 17.) Now Jurewitz again moves to withdraw as attorney of record for Plaintiff.
(Mtn. [Doc. 18-1].)
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court. Darby v. City
of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992); CivLR 83(3)(f)(3). “The grant or
denial of an attorney’s motion to withdraw in a civil case is a matter addressed to the
discretion of the trial court . . . .” Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, Inc., 694 F.2d
1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1982). Factors considered in evaluating the motion are “(1) the
reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause 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.” CE Resource, Inc. v.
Magellan Group, LLC, No. 2:08-CV-02999MCEKJM, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D.
Cal. Oct. 14, 2009) (citing Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, No. 1:02-cv-06599,
2009 WL 89141, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan 14, 2009)).
Withdrawal of counsel is governed by the standards of professional conduct
required of members of the State Bar of California. See Nehad v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 962,
Case 3:25-cv-00884-RBM-BJW Document 19 Filed 12/16/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 4

3
25cv0884-W-BJW
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
970 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying California Rules of Professional Conduct to attorney
withdrawal). Under the California professional conduct rules, an attorney may withdraw
if “the client by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out
the representation effectively.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(b).
III. 	A NALYSIS
Jurewitz asserts that good cause exists to withdraw as Plaintiff’s counsel due to a
break down in the attorney-client relationship. (Mtn. at 2-5.) In support of its motion,
Jurewitz states that Plaintiff “became dissatisfied with the services being provided and
elected to terminate the attorney-client relationship[,]” and that “irreconcilable
differences regarding litigation strategy and case management” have arisen. (Id. at 4.)
Jurewitz further explains that “Plaintiff has repeatedly rejected counsel’s professional
advice while insisting on actions that are contrary to counsel’s legal judgment and years
of experience.” (Id.) “Plaintiff has also accused counsel of incompetence, thereby
rendering continued representation unreasonably difficult.” (Id.) Jurewitz concludes that
“[t]his strained relationship has impaired counsel’s ability to effectively and ethically
advocate on Plaintiff’s behalf.” (Mtn. at 4.)
Jurewitz also includes email communications with Plaintiff in its motion. (Mtn. Ex.
A [Doc. 18-2].) In an email dated October 30, 2025, Plaintiff wrote “you are no longer
my lawyer. If you have any documents belonging to me, please return them asap.” (Id. at
8.) The remaining emails appear to concern coordination of Jurewitz’s withdrawal from
the case. (See Mtn. Ex. A.) Furthermore, Jurewitz includes the previously stricken consent
order form for substitution of attorney with Plaintiff’s signature. (See Mtn. Ex. B [Doc.
18-2].)
Based on the above, the Court finds that both Plaintiff and Jurewitz wish to
terminate the attorney-client relationship. Jurewitz’s motion and representations indicate
that there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Moreover, it does not
appear that Jurewitz’s withdrawal or termination will cause any prejudice, harm, or undue
Case 3:25-cv-00884-RBM-BJW Document 19 Filed 12/16/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 4

4
25cv0884-W-BJW
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
delay in this matter. Accordingly, these factors weigh in favor of permitting Jurewitz to
withdraw as Plaintiff’s attorney of record. The Court finds that a 60-day continuance of
all case deadlines is appropriate to give Plaintiff additional time to find another attorney.
No further delays will be permitted.
IV. 	C ONCLUSION & ORDER
For all the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Jurewitz’s motion to
withdraw as attorney of record for Plaintiff [Doc. 18] and ORDERS as follows:
• 	Jurewitz shall serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff and shall file the proof
of service;
• 	No later than January 2, 2026, Plaintiff shall file a notice with this Court
confirming the mailing address for service of process; and
• 	In light of this order, the Court CONTINUES all current case deadlines by
60 days to give Plaintiff more time to find an attorney.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 16, 2025
Case 3:25-cv-00884-RBM-BJW Document 19 Filed 12/16/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 4