Doe

Doe v. Steele

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMay 27, 20213:20-cv-01818California918 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JANE DOE, Case No. 20-cv-1818-MMA (MSB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENSE

v. COUNSEL’S MOTION TO

WITHDRAW

CISSY STEELE, et al.,

Defendants. [Doc. No. 48] 16 17 Counsel for Defendant Cissy Steele (“Steele”), Douglas M. Wade (“Counsel”), moves to withdraw as counsel of record. See Doc. No. 48. As set forth in his motion and declaration, Counsel argues that Steele would better benefit from an attorney with a criminal defense background and Steele’s account with Counsel has been in arrears. See Doc. No. 48 at 1, 2, 4; Wade Decl., Doc. No. 48-2 ¶¶ 9, 11. Counsel declares that he served the motion on Steele and opposing counsel. See Wade Decl., Doc. No. 52 ¶¶ 3–6; Wade Decl., Doc. No. 53 ¶ 3; see also CivLR 83.3.f.3. Given that no opposition brief 25 26 27 28 was filed, see CivLR 7.1.e.2; see also CivLR 7.1.e.7, the Court finds that the motion is unopposed. “An attorney may not…

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.