Cas@ 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 147 Filed 05/17/13 Page1of2 Page ID #:2955

Oo wonn a fF WO NO

—
So

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INGENUITY 13 LLC, Case Nos. 2:12-cv-8333-ODW(JCx)
Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
V. WITHDRAW [144]
JOHN DOE,
Defendant.

Klinedinst P.C. and its attorneys seek to withdraw as counsel of record for
Prenda Law, Inc. (ECF No. 144.) Local Rule 83-2.9.2.1 requires an attorney to
obtain leave from the court to withdraw as counsel. California’s Rules of Professional
Conduct generally govern an attorney’s conduct before this Court, including
circumstances permitting withdrawal. See L.R. 83-3.1.2.

A district court has discretion to permit or deny an attorney’s withdrawal.
Huntington Learning Ctrs., Inc. v. Educ. Gateway, Inc., No. 2:09-cv-3200
PSG(VBKx), 2009 WL 2337863, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2009). Courts 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.” Jd.

iid

Cas

—

Oo ON Dn Wn FF WO WN

2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 147 Filed 05/17/13 Page 2of2 Page ID #:2956

Klinedinst states no reasons for its withdrawal, other than that Prenda Law has
consented to it. Klinedinst correctly notes that Prenda Law is a corporation and
cannot represent itself pro se in federal court. Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II
Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993). But because no attorney has
yet to substitute in for Prenda Law, the Court rejects Klinedinst’s Request to
Withdraw.

Thus, Klinedinst’s Request is hereby DENIED. The Court will allow
Klinedinst to withdraw when Prenda Law has acquired substitute counsel. At that
time, Prenda Law must file a request for approval of substitution of attorney.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 17, 2013

_ Gti ——

OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE