Ross et al v. FCA US, LLC. et al

1
25-cv-3242-AJB-BLM
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
PENNY ROSS AND RODNEY ROSS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FCA US, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25-cv-3242-AJB-BLM
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW
(Doc. No. 13)
Before the Court is a motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs Penny Ross and
Rodney Ross (“Plaintiffs”) filed by Plaintiffs’ counsel Attorney Rabiya Tirmizi and the
law firm Strategic Legal Practices, APC (“SLP”).1 (Doc. No. 13.) Defendant FCA US,
LLC (“FCA”) does not oppose the motion to withdraw. (Doc. No. 19.) The Court finds the
matter suitable for decision on the papers and without oral argument, pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 7.1.d.1. For the reasons stated herein, the motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs initiated this action against Defendant Haddad Dodge Ram (“Dodge”) and
Defendant FCA on March 5, 2025, in San Diego Superior Court. (Doc. No. 1-2.) Plaintiffs
1 Plaintiff Rodney Ross passed away after this action commenced. (Doc. No. 10 at 3.)
Case 3:25-cv-03242-AJB-BLM Document 21 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 6

2
25-cv-3242-AJB-BLM
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
voluntarily dismissed Dodge on November 3, 2025. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) After Plaintiff
dismissed Dodge, FCA removed this matter to federal court alleging diversity jurisdiction.
(Doc. No. 1.)
SLP filed the instant motion to withdraw as counsel on February 11, 2026. (Doc.
No. 13.) SLP states that “a complete and irreparable breakdown of the attorney-client
relationship has occurred that has made it unreasonably difficult for SLP to carry out the
representation effectively.” (Doc. No. 13 at 5.) According to the declaration of Rabiya
Tirmizi, SLP attempted numerous times to communicate with Plaintiffs, including fifteen
(15) phone calls and seventeen (17) emails. (Id.; Declaration of Rabiya Tirmizi (“Tirmizi
Decl.”) ¶ 4.) However, Plaintiffs have not responded to SLP. (Doc. No. 13 at 6; Tirmizi
Decl. ¶ 5.)
On February 12, 2026, the Court issued an Order requiring Plaintiff Penny Ross to
respond to SLP’s motion to withdraw by no later than February 20, 2026. (Doc. No. 15.)
The Court ordered Ms. Ross to state whether she consents to or opposes SLP’s request to
withdraw. (Id.) The Court also required Ms. Ross to address whether she is prepared to
pursue her claims and whether she intends to proceed pro se or retain substitute counsel.
(Id.) The Court warned Ms. Ross that failing to file a response to SLP’s Motion would
result in the Court issuing an Order to Show Cause why this matter should not be dismissed
for failure to prosecute. (Id.) Ms. Ross’s deadline to respond the SLP’s Motion passed and
the Court received no communication from Plaintiffs. (Id.) Thus, on March 2, 2026, the
Court issued and Order to Show Cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for
failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 20.) Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to the Order to Show
Cause has now passed as well and the Court still has not received any communication from
Plaintiffs. (Id.) A Show Cause Hearing is scheduled for April 16, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. (Id.)
Ms. Ross must appear in person at the Show Cause Hearing.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Granting or denying a motion to be relieved as counsel is within the discretion of the
district court. See United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009) (reviewing
Case 3:25-cv-03242-AJB-BLM Document 21 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 6

3
25-cv-3242-AJB-BLM
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
denial of motion to be relieved as counsel for abuse of discretion); In re Saber, No.
21-55913, 2022 WL 11592836, at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022). An attorney of record may
not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court. Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc.,
No. 07-cv-594-WQH-LS, 2008 WL 410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008). In exercising
its discretion, courts commonly consider the following factors when determining whether
counsel should be permitted to withdraw:
(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.
Id., at *2.
In a federal proceeding, a lawyer’s conduct, including his or her duties to their client,
is governed by the ethical rules of the relevant court. See In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634, 645
n.6 (1985) (“The state code of professional responsibility does not by its own terms apply
to sanctions in the federal courts. Federal courts admit and suspend attorneys as an exercise
of their inherent power; the standards imposed are a matter of federal law.”). “When an
attorney appears before a federal court, he is acting as an officer of that court, and it is that
court which must judge his conduct.” 	Cord v. Smith, 338 F.2d 516, 524 (9th Cir. 1964).
“Absent specific ethical standards from case law, court rules, and adopted rules of
professional conduct, see In re Snyder, 472 U.S. at 645, ‘those standards promulgated by
the American Bar Association’ (“ABA”) offer ‘appropriate guidance for finding the current
national standards of ethical norms.’” Suarez v. Del Toro, No. 22-CV-0021-GPC-BLM,
2023 WL 149105 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2023) (quoting In re Mitchell, 901 F.2d 1179, 1184
(3d Cir. 1990)). Accordingly, the Court looks to the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional
Conduct. See Mitchell, 901 F.2d at 1184; see also Suarez, 2023 WL 149105, at *2 (looking
to the ABA Model Rules, rather than the California Rules of Professional Conduct, when
analyzing a motion to be relieved as counsel in the Southern District of California).
Case 3:25-cv-03242-AJB-BLM Document 21 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 6

4
25-cv-3242-AJB-BLM
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
III. 	DISCUSSION
As a preliminary matter, in the Southern District of California, “[a] motion to
withdraw as attorney of record must be served on the adverse party and on the moving
attorney’s client.” CivLR 83.3.f.3. “A declaration pertaining to such service must be filed”
and failure to “serve as required by [CivLR 83.3] or to file the required declaration of
service will result in a denial of the motion.” Id. Here, Counsel has met the notice
requirement. (See Doc. No. 14)
Turning to the merits of the motion to withdraw, SLP argues there has been a
“complete and irreparable breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.” (Doc. No. 13
at 5.) 	And 	despite 	dozens 	of 	attempts 	to 	contact 	Plaintiffs, 	Plaintiffs 	have 	been
unresponsive. 	Under ABA Model Rule 1.16(b), an attorney may withdraw from
representation when “the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer
regarding the lawyer’s services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will
withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled.” Model Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 1.16(b)(5)
(Am. Bar. Ass’n, 1983) (last amended April 14, 2020). Additionally, an attorney may
withdraw if representation “has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client,” or if
“other good cause for withdrawal exists.” Id. at r. 1.16(b)(6)&(7).
The 	Court 	finds 	good 	cause 	for 	withdrawal 	exists. 	Plaintiffs 	have 	ceased
communicating with their counsel rendering it unreasonably difficult for SLP to effectively
continue representation. See Osgood v. Main Streat Mktg., LLC, No. 16-cv-2415-GPC-
BGS, 2017 WL 7362740, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2017) (granting motion to withdraw
due to defendants refusing to communicate with counsel); see also McPhail v. FCA US,
LLC, No. 24-cv-1879-WQH-DDL, 2025 WL 674602 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2025) (granting
motion to withdraw when there was “a complete and irreparable breakdown of the
attorney-client relationship . . . ma[king] it unreasonably difficult . . . to carry out the
representation effectively[.]”).
Moreover, FCA filed a response to the motion indicating that it does not oppose the
withdrawal. ECF No. 19. And Plaintiffs have failed to oppose the withdrawal. It thus
Case 3:25-cv-03242-AJB-BLM Document 21 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 6

5
25-cv-3242-AJB-BLM
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
appears that the withdrawal will not prejudice any of the litigants. Also, because the case
is still in its early stages—the Court has yet to issue a scheduling order and there are no
deadlines 	currently 	pending—there 	will 	be 	no 	unnecessary 	delays 	caused 	by 	the
withdrawal.
The only potential harm to the administration of justice the Court can identify is the
potential that Plaintiffs proceed pro se. But Plaintiffs have known about counsel’s intent to
withdraw since at least February 11, 2026, when Plaintiffs’ counsel filed the instant motion
and served it on Plaintiffs. (See Doc. Nos. 13; 14.) Plaintiffs have had ample notice of the
withdrawal, and the Court has afforded Plaintiffs the opportunity to respond to the motion
on two separate occasions. (Doc. Nos. 15; 20.) To-date, Plaintiffs have failed to oppose, or
otherwise respond to, the motion to withdraw. Accordingly, the withdrawal will not harm
the administration of justice.
The Court concludes that SLP has demonstrated sufficient reasons to be relieved as
counsel. The Court also concludes that the withdrawal will not prejudice Plaintiffs, harm
the administration of justice, or delay resolution of the case. Accordingly, the Court finds
that withdrawal is appropriate here. See, e.g., Gurvey v. Legend Films, Inc., No. 09-cv-942-
IEG-BGS, 2010 WL 2756944, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 12, 2010) (granting motion to withdraw
where good cause existed, the case was “still in its infancy” with “no immediately
scheduled hearings,” and the plaintiff had ample notice of counsel’s intent to withdraw);
see also McPhail, 2025 WL 674602, at *1 (granting motion to withdraw where the plaintiff
ceased communicating with counsel).
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The Motion to Withdraw (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED. SLP and attorneys
Rabiya F. Tirmizi, Tionna Carvalho, and Elizabeth A. LaRocque are withdrawn as counsel
of record in this action.
2. 	Plaintiffs have twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order to obtain new
counsel and have counsel file a notice of appearance. If no notice of appearance is filed,
Case 3:25-cv-03242-AJB-BLM Document 21 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 6

6
25-cv-3242-AJB-BLM
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
the Court will deem Plaintiffs as proceeding pro se. “A party proceeding pro se must keep
the Court and opposing parties advised as to current address.” CivLR 83.11(b). “Failure to
comply [ ] may be ground[s] for dismissal . . . .” CivLR 83.11(a).
3. 	Plaintiffs are again cautioned that there is a show cause hearing scheduled for
April 16, 2026. (Doc. No. 20.) If Plaintiffs fail to appear, in person, at the hearing, this
matter will be terminated for failure to prosecute. See id.; see also CivLR 83.11 (“Any
person who is appearing propria persona, (without an attorney) (i.e. pro se) must appear
personally for such purpose and may not delegate that duty to any other person, including
husband or wife, or another party on the same side appearing without an attorney.”)
4. 	No later than seven (7) days from the entry of this Order, SLP shall file a
certificate of service indicating that it has served Plaintiffs with a copy of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 24, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03242-AJB-BLM Document 21 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 6