Protect-US, Inc. v. Innoworks Employment Services, Inc.

1
25-CV-2167 JLS (KSC)
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
PROTECT-US, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.
INNOWORKS EMPLOYMENT
SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No.: 25-CV-2167 JLS (KSC)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF
RECORD
(ECF No. 23)
Presently before the Court is Pierson Ferdinand LLP’s (“Movant”) Motion to
Withdraw as Counsel of Record (“Mot.,” ECF No. 23). 	Movant seeks to withdraw as
counsel for Defendant Innoworks Employment Services, Inc. in this matter.1 Mot. at 1.
“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.” Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 07-CV-594-WQH (NLS), 2008 WL 410694,
at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008) (cleaned up) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted); see also Civ. L.R. 83.3(f)(3). 	“In ruling on a motion to withdraw as counsel,
1 Gordon M. Berger, for whom a pro hac vice application was filed on October 21, 2025, see ECF No. 11,
also seeks to withdraw as counsel of record and to withdraw the pro hac vice application. Mot. at 5. The
Court notes that it did not rule on the application, as it was missing a required signature. See ECF No. 11.
Nevertheless, the Court GRANTS Mr. Berger’s request to withdraw the application.
Case 3:25-cv-02167-JLS-KSC Document 25 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 4

2
25-CV-2167 JLS (KSC)
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
courts consider: (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.” Leatt
Corp. v. Innovative Safety Tech., LLC, No. 09-CV-1301-IEG (POR), 2010 WL 444708,
at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2010) (citing Beard, 2008 WL 410694, at *2).
In relevant part, Rule 1.16 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct provides:
(b) [A] lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if: (4) The client by
other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the
representation effectively; [or] (5) The client breaches a material term of an
agreement with, or obligation, to the lawyer relating to the representation, and
the lawyer has given the client a reasonable warning after the breach that the
lawyer will withdraw unless the client fulfills the agreement or performs the
obligation.
. . .
(c) If permission for termination of a representation is required by the rules of
a tribunal, a lawyer shall not terminate a representation before that tribunal
without its permission.
(d) A lawyer shall not terminate a representation until the lawyer has taken
reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the
client, such as giving the client sufficient notice to permit the client to retain
other counsel, and complying with paragraph (e) [discussing return of client
file and refund of unearned fees].
Pursuant to the Southern District of California’s Civil Local Rules, “[a] motion to
withdraw as attorney of record must be served on the adverse party and on the moving
attorney’s client.” Civ. L.R. 83.3(f)(3)(a). The Local Rules also state:
Only natural persons representing their individual interests in propria persona
may appear in court without representation by an attorney permitted to
practice pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3. All other parties, including
corporations, partnerships and other legal entities, may appear in court only
through an attorney permitted to practice pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3.
Movant seeks to withdraw due to irreconcilable differences. 	Mot. at 2. 	Movant
submits that multiple attempts have been made to obtain Defendant’s consent to the
Case 3:25-cv-02167-JLS-KSC Document 25 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 4

3
25-CV-2167 JLS (KSC)
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
withdrawal, to which Defendant has not responded. 	Id. 	Further, the case remains at an
early stage: “[n]o rule 16 scheduling order has issued,” “[n]o discovery has commenced,”
“[n]o depositions have been noticed,” and “[t]here are no pending motions before the
Court.” Id. The Court finds that good cause exists for Movant to withdraw as counsel of
record. 	Generalized descriptions of a “strained relationship” are sufficient to establish
good cause. 	See Heilman v. Silva, No. 13-CV-2984 JLS (AGS), 2017 WL 822164, at *2
(S.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2017) (premising good cause for withdrawal on “irreconcilable
differences”). 	As the case is in an early phase, the Court does not find that withdrawal
would unduly prejudice Defendant.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:25-cv-02167-JLS-KSC Document 25 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 4

4
25-CV-2167 JLS (KSC)
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
Accordingly, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the Motion (ECF No. 23)
and ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The Clerk of Court SHALL update the docket to reflect the withdrawal of
Movant Pierson Ferdinand LLP as counsel for Defendant in this case.
2. 	Movant Pierson Ferdinand LLP SHALL serve a copy of this Order on
Defendant Innoworks Employment Services, Inc., file proof of service with the Court, and
inform Defendant of the contents of this Order by phone, text message, and email and
submit a declaration of having done so.
3. 	Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3(j),2 Defendant Innoworks Employment
Services, Inc. must retain counsel and have counsel file a notice of appearance within 30
days of entry of this Order or be subject to default proceedings filed by Plaintiff pursuant
to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
4. 	The Court VACATES the April 9, 2026, hearing on the Motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 10, 2026
2 Civil Local Rule 83.3(j) prohibits certain business entities from proceeding without representation.
However, “rule 83.3(j) is not offended where a court orders an unrepresented entity to find substitute
counsel and provides time to do this on the condition that failure to do so will expose the defendant to
default proceedings.” Sihler v. Fulfillment, Inc., No. 20-CV-1528-LL (DDL), 2023 WL 3046072, at *3
(S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2023) (first citing Osgood v. Main Streat Mktg., LLC, No. 16CV2415-GPC(BGS),
2017 WL 7362740, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2017) (ordering the defendant to obtain new counsel within
thirty days); and then citing United States v. High Country Broad Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993)).
Case 3:25-cv-02167-JLS-KSC Document 25 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 4