Pinchback

(PC) Matthews v. Pinchback

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 8, 20232:22-cv-01329California927 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DEREK MATTHEWS, No. 2:22–cv–1329–DAD–KJN Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY

WITHDRAWAL; APPOINTING COUNSEL;

v. STAYING CASE; AND RECLASSIFYING

CASE AS PC CASE

DEMITA PINCHBACK, et al., (ECF Nos. 21, 34.) Defendants. 16 Currently before the court are two motions by plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw from the case as counsel of record. (ECF Nos. 21, 34.) A district court has discretion to permit or deny an attorney's withdrawal. See Huntington Learning Ctrs., Inc. v. Educ. Gateway, Inc., 2009 WL 2337863, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2009). Courts often consider four factors for withdrawal requests: “(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.” Id. After discussing the matter with plaintiff, his current…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.