Hayes v. County of San Diego et al

1
25-CV-1742-GPC-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
JAMES PATRICK HAYES, an
individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, EL CAJON
POLICE DEPARTMENT, KELLY
MARTINEZ in her individual capacity,
JEREMIAH LARSON in his individual
capacity, SHERIFF’S DEPUTY DOES 1-
10,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25-CV-1742-GPC-BLM
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
COUNSEL’S MOTION TO
WITHDRAW
[ECF No. 34]
This lawsuit arises from alleged mistreatment experienced by Plaintiff while in
custody at the San Diego County Sherriff’s Central Jail. See ECF No. 1. Currently pending
before the Court is Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel. ECF No. 34.
Defendants have not opposed the motion. Having considered Plaintiff’s counsel’s
unopposed motion, the Court GRANTS the motion to withdraw as counsel.
//
Case 3:25-cv-01742-GPC-JAC Document 38 Filed 03/03/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 4

2
25-CV-1742-GPC-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
BACKGROUND
On July 8, 2025, Plaintiff James Patrick Hayes filed his complaint against
Defendants alleging fifteen separate claims regarding alleged mistreatment he experienced
at the San Diego County Sherriff’s Central Jail on the evening of February 8, 2025. ECF
No. 1. Plaintiff’s counsel now moves to withdraw based on one or more grounds specified
in the California Rules of Professional Conduct. See ECF No. 36. Defendants have not
opposed the motion, despite being given the opportunity to do so. See ECF No. 35.
Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that he has conferred with Plaintiff several times and
provided him with a formal letter explaining the circumstances giving rise to this motion.
ECF No. 36, at 2. Plaintiff has declined to respond. Id.
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). Civil Local Rule 83.3(f)(3) further
requires an attorney to serve any motion to withdraw on the adverse party and his client
and to file a declaration pertaining to such service. Civ. L.R. 83.3(f)(3). The trial court has
discretion whether to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw in a civil case. See
La Grand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998); Stewart v. Boeing Co., No. CV-
12-5621-RSWL, 2013 WL 3168269, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2013).
Courts should consider the following factors when ruling upon a motion to withdraw
as counsel: (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. Deal
v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. C09 01643 SBA, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
Sept. 15, 2010).
Danger of prejudice is minimized when a “case is still in its infancy,” “there are no
immediately scheduled hearings,” and the opposing party receives “notice of [counsel’s]
Case 3:25-cv-01742-GPC-JAC Document 38 Filed 03/03/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 4

3
25-CV-1742-GPC-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
intent to withdraw.” Gurvey v. Legend Films, Inc., No. 09-CV-942-IEG, 2010 WL
2756944, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 12, 2010). Further, this district’s local rules incorporate “the
standards of professional conduct required by members of the State bar of California,” Civ.
L.R. 83.4(b), which in turn state that counsel is not to withdraw without taking “reasonable
steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving
due notice to the client [and] allowing time for employment of other counsel.” Skazzi3
Capital Ltd. v. Pathway Genomics Corp., No. 3:18-CV-00317-BEN, 2019 WL 6878871,
at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2019) (quoting Cal. R. of Prof. Conduct 3-700(A)(2)).
DISCUSSION
Here, counsel seeks to withdraw based on one or more grounds specified in the
California Rules of Professional Conduct. See ECF No. 36. Counsel has further complied
with the Civil Local Rules by filing a sworn declaration indicating that he has served his
motion to withdraw, declaration, statement of reasons in support of the motion to withdraw,
and proposed order on both opposing counsel and Plaintiff. See Civ. L.R. 83.3(f)(3); ECF
No. 34.
No party has opposed the motion, and no prejudice has been shown. Additionally,
this case is in its early stages, there are no pending hearings, and Defense counsel has
received notice of counsel’s intent to withdraw. See Gurvey, 2010 WL 2756944, at *1.
Plaintiff’s counsel has informed Plaintiff of the reasons for withdrawal and taken
steps to avoid prejudice to Plaintiff, such as completing efforts to obtain health records
which he will provide to Plaintiff and equipping Plaintiff with a summary of next steps in
this case. ECF No. 36, at 2. Should Plaintiff obtain new counsel, current counsel avers that
he will provide new counsel with the record and meet and confer to provide new counsel
with a full update on this matter. Id. at 2-3.
Case 3:25-cv-01742-GPC-JAC Document 38 Filed 03/03/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 4

4
25-CV-1742-GPC-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
Given the early stage of the proceedings, there is no evidence that counsel’s
withdrawal will delay this matter, nor that withdrawal might harm the administration of
justice.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as
counsel.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that:
1. Plaintiff’s counsel's motion to withdraw, ECF No. 34, is GRANTED;
2. The Clerk of Court SHALL update the docket to reflect the withdrawal of Mr.
Owen Roth and his law firm as counsel for Plaintiff;
3. The Court grants Plaintiff forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order to
obtain new counsel or notify the Court that he intends to proceed pro se;
4. Though relieved, counsel SHALL provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and
explain the above 45-day deadline;
5. The Court VACATES the hearing previously set for April 3, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 3, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-01742-GPC-JAC Document 38 Filed 03/03/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 4