Khanchandani v. ASK IT Solutions, LLC et al

-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
DIMPLE KHANCHANDANI, 	§
individually and on behalf of others 	§
similarly situated, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:25-CV-793-K
§
ASK IT SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., 	§
Defendants. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Amended Unopposed Motion to Withdraw as
Attorneys of Record (Dkt. No. 48) filed by the law firm Epstein Becker & Green
(“EBG”), which has appeared in this action on behalf of all the defendants. United
States District Judge Ed Kinkeade referred the motion to the undersigned magistrate
judge for a hearing, if necessary, and determination. (Dkt. No. 49.) After
considering the motion, the particular circumstances of this case, and the relevant
authority, the Court grants the motion.
Attorneys generally are expected to continue representing a client through the
completion of a case. F.T.C. v. Intellipay, Inc., 828 F. Supp. 33, 33 (S.D. Tex. 1993).
“An attorney may withdraw from representation only upon leave of the court and a
showing of good cause and reasonable notice to the client.” White v. BAC Home
Loans Servicing, LP, No. 309-CV-2484-G, 2010 WL 2473833, at *1 (N.D. Tex. June
15, 2010) (quoting Matter of Wynn, 889 F.2d 644, 646 (5th Cir. 1989)). “A court’s
Case 3:25-cv-00793-K Document 56 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

-2-
determination whether an attorney has good cause to withdraw depends on the facts
and circumstances of the case.” Edwards v. Oliver, No. 3:17-CV-1208-M-BT, 2022
WL 4820147, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2022). While the existence of good cause is
a matter of federal law, a court may make its assessment “by referring to the
standards for withdrawal articulated in national ethics canons and in the ethics rules
adopted by the court.” Id. at *2. This Court has looked to Texas Disciplinary Rules
of Professional Conduct. See id. “The record must generally reflect an appropriate
basis for granting leave; unsubstantiated claims are insufficient.” F.T.C., 828 F.
Supp. at 34.
EBG has established that good cause exists for its withdrawal. Texas ethical
rules authorize attorneys to terminate representation of a client for “substantial[]”
failure to “fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services[.]” Tex.
Disciplinary Rule of Prof’l Conduct § 1.16(b)(5) (Oct. 1, 2024). (See Mot. 2.) Failure
to pay the lawyer’s fee has been recognized as good cause for withdrawal. Denton v.
Suter, No. 3:11-CV-2559-N, 2013 WL 5477155, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2013) (“The
Fifth Circuit has recognized that counsel may have good cause to withdraw when a
client refuses to pay for services.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Top
Sales, Inc. v. Designer Vans, Inc., No. 3:96-CV-0721, 1997 WL 786254, at *1 (N.D.
Tex. Dec. 11, 1997).
“Even if ‘good cause for withdrawal exists, it is incumbent on the court to
assure that the prosecution of the lawsuit before it is not disrupted by the withdrawal
Case 3:25-cv-00793-K Document 56 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

-3-
of counsel.’” Keyes v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:20-CV-633-G-BN, 2020 WL
10963960, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 1, 2020) (quoting Denton, 2013 WL 5477155, at *2)
(internal quotation marks omitted)). Courts may consider various factors when
determining whether to permit counsel to withdraw, foremost among them whether
withdrawal will result in “undue delay in the proceedings, prejudice to the client, and
the interests of justice.” Id. (quoting Dorsey v. Portfolio Equities, Inc., No. CIV.A.3:04-
CV-0472-B, 2008 WL 4414526, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2008)).
The Court concludes that allowing EBG to withdraw will not disrupt the
progression of this lawsuit. Successor counsel has now appeared on Defendants
ASK IT Solutions LLC and Sai Kiran Singh Takoor (see Dkt. No. 53) and filed a
response to the pending motion to enforce a settlement agreement (see Dkt. No. 54).
The remaining defendants have not been served in this action.
EBG’s Amended Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (Dkt. No. 48) is
GRANTED. Attorneys Paul DeCamp, Greta Ravitsky, and Kathleen Barrett and
the law firm Epstein Becker & Green PC are terminated from further representation
of defendants in this action.
SO ORDERED on January 28, 2026.
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-00793-K Document 56 Filed 01/28/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>