Blandino v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Background

On July 8, 2026, plaintiffs’ counsel Jerome La Torre and California Insurance Attorneys, P.C. (CAI), moved for permission to withdraw from representing the plaintiffs. Counsel stated that the plaintiffs had been unresponsive to CAI’s efforts to communicate about and prosecute the case since January 30, 2026. Neither the plaintiffs nor Liberty Mutual Insurance Company opposed the motion.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that counsel may withdraw only after receiving a court order and giving reasonably advance written notice to the client and other parties who have appeared. Courts consider the reasons for withdrawal, possible prejudice to other litigants, harm to the administration of justice, and delay in resolving the case.

The court found that counsel had tried and failed to reach the plaintiffs for approximately half a year through multiple channels. Because counsel could not effectively prosecute the case without communicating with the plaintiffs, the court found sufficient grounds for withdrawal. It also found that withdrawal was unlikely to prejudice other litigants or harm the administration of justice, and that any additional delay was not expected to be significant.

Rulings and practical effects

The court granted plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw. To reduce possible prejudice, harm, or delay, the court ordered that filings could continue to be served on the withdrawing counsel for forwarding purposes until the plaintiffs appear through other counsel or enter an appearance without counsel.

The court encouraged the plaintiffs to seek free assistance from the Federal Pro Se Program at the San Jose Courthouse, while stating that the program would not represent them in the action. It also reminded them that, if they proceed without a lawyer, they must comply with all court rules and orders. Finally, the court denied as moot the parties’ stipulation for a remote appearance at the hearing.