From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Urias v. Labcorp Peri-Approval & Commercialization Inc.

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Dec 20, 2023
23-CV-1815 JLS (MSB) (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2023)

Opinion

23-CV-1815 JLS (MSB)

12-20-2023

ANDREA URIAS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LABCORP PERI-APPROVAL AND COMMERCIALIZATION INC., an unknown entity; COVANCE MARKET ACCESS SERVICES, INC., a corporation; COVANCE INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.


ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS', MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

(ECF NO. 17)

Hon. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge

Presently before the Court is the Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Counsel (“Mot.,” ECF No. 17) brought by Defendants Labcorp Peri-Approval and Commercialization, Inc. and Convenance Market Access Services, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Motion. See generally Docket.

“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. 07CV594WQH (NLS), 2008 WL 410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008) (alterations, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted). “In ruling on a motion to withdraw as counsel, 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).

Here, good cause exists to grant Defendants' Motion. Defendants seek to withdraw Kimberly Carter (“Carter”) as counsel and remove her from the CM/ECF service list because Carter is no longer with the firm Kelley Drye & Warren LLP (the “Firm”). Mot. at 1. Defendants argue, and the Court agrees, that no prejudice or delay is likely to result from this withdrawal, as the Firm has been and will continue to represent Defendants. See id.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion. The Clerk of the Court SHALL update the docket to reflect the withdrawal of Kimberly Carter as counsel for Defendants and SHALL remove her from the CM/ECF service list for this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Urias v. Labcorp Peri-Approval & Commercialization Inc.

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Dec 20, 2023
23-CV-1815 JLS (MSB) (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2023)
Case details for

Urias v. Labcorp Peri-Approval & Commercialization Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ANDREA URIAS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly…

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of California

Date published: Dec 20, 2023

Citations

23-CV-1815 JLS (MSB) (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2023)

Citing Cases

Millete v. Chula Vista Police Dep't

” Urias v. Labcorp Peri-Approval & Commercialization Inc., No. 23-CV-1815 JLS (MSB), 2023 WL…

Lincoln v. Chula Vista Police Dep't

” Urias v. Labcorp Peri-Approval & Commercialization Inc., No. 23-CV-1815 JLS (MSB), 2023 WL…