1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MILLENNIUM FRANCHISE GROUP, Case No. 21-cv-08684-CRB

LLC,

9

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

10

WITHDRAW

v. 11 ARIC K PERMINTER, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 Jeffery Hubins of law firm Schauman & Hubins moves to withdraw as counsel for 15 Plaintiff Millennium Franchise Group, LLC. Hubins provides three bases for withdrawal: 16 (1) Plaintiff’s consent to the withdrawal, (2) Hubins’s physical and mental health 17 following a cancer diagnosis, and (3) a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship 18 between Schauman & Hubins and Plaintiff. Mot. (dkt. 91) at 3. All three of these are 19 valid reasons for counsel to withdraw, though none mandates withdrawal. See Cal. R. 20 Prof. Conduct 1.16(b)(6) (client consent); id. 1.16(b)(8) (counsel’s physical or mental 21 health); id. 1.16(b)(1) and (4) (breakdown in attorney-client relationship).1 The Court 22 finds that all three reasons support withdrawal in this case. 23 Even if withdrawal is permitted under the Rules of Professional Conduct, a motion 24 for withdrawal may be denied if withdrawal would prejudice litigants or delay resolution 25 of the case. See CE Res., Inc. v. Magellan Grp., LLC, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 26 Oct. 14, 2009). There does not appear to be prejudice here. Plaintiff (the client) and 27 1 Defendants (through counsel) have both consented to the withdrawal. Hubins Decl. 2 (dkt. 92) ¶¶ 3–4. Schauman & Hubins has provided Plaintiff with its electronic case file 3 and will provide Plaintiff access to its physical case file. Mot. at 5. Nor is withdrawal 4 likely to delay litigation. Discovery is nearly complete, with only Plaintiff’s deposition 5 outstanding. Id. The Court thus sees no risk of prejudice or delay in granting this motion. 6 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Schauman & Hubins’s motion to withdraw as 7 counsel with the following conditions: 8 1. Plaintiff, a limited liability corporation, may not appear pro se. Civ. L.R. 3-9(b); 9 Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993). The Court therefore 10 ORDERS Plaintiff to file a substitution of counsel within 30 days of this order. 11 See, e.g., Optrics Inc. v. Barracuda Networks Inc., 17-cv-4977-RS, 2020 WL 12 1815690, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2020). Failure to do so may result in 13 dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. 14 2. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 11-5(b), the Court ORDERS that any papers filed 15 in this case be served on Schauman & Hubins and forwarded to Plaintiff until 16 Plaintiff files a substitution of counsel. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: March 17, 2025

CHARLES R. BREYER

19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27