The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sifton, Senior Judge
Plaintiff Koon Chun Hing Kee Soy & Sauce Factory, Ltd. ("plaintiff"), commenced this action against defendants Chun Wai Chak, a/k/a Ah Chak ("Chak"); Kun Fung USA Trading, a/k/a Kun Fung Trading Co.; Sonic Group, Inc.; Wong Fat Market Inc., a/k/a Gung Fat Market; Cheung Fat Trading Inc., a/k/a Cheung Fat Market; Gung Fat Trading Inc.; Metropolitan Group USA Inc.; Yuan Xi Li a/k/a Li Yuen, a/k/a Ah Yuen; Xue Mei Huang, a/k/a May Huang; Shu Fong Wong a/k/a Shu Wong; Zhe Doe; and John Does 1-10 on June 26, 2007. Plaintiff alleges that defendants engaged in (1) trademark infringement, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1114; (2) counterfeiting, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116; (3) trade dress infringement, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (4) unfair competition, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (5) dilution, under NY Gen. Bus. Law, Section 360-L; and (6) common law unfair competition, and seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. Now before the Court is a motion from Chak's attorney ("Counsel") requesting permission to withdraw from representation of Chak only.*fn1 For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted.
On November 19, 2007, Counsel made a first request for permission to withdraw from representation of Chak. At that time, Counsel stated that there had been a breakdown of communication between her office and Chak. Counsel stated her belief that Chak was in Hong Kong but she stated she was not sure. On November 20, 2007, plaintiff submitted a letter in opposition to the motion to withdraw. Plaintiff stated that Counsel had made no indication that she had attempted to serve her application on him in Hong Kong. Plaintiff further stated that Chak's absence from the United States had been used as an "excuse" by Counsel for not responding to various motions for discovery. Plaintiff claimed that the motion was an attempt to avoid complying with expedited discovery and to conceal evidence. Plaintiff requested that if the Court should grant the motion, Counsel should be directed to provide plaintiff with Chak's Hong Kong address. On November 27, 2007, I denied the motion to withdraw without prejudice to its renewal in the event that Chak failed to appear either in person or through new counsel within thirty days of the date of the order.
On January 15, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for a default judgment as to Chak and various other defendants. On January 23, 2008, the Clerk of the Court noted Chak's default. On February 13, 2008, I denied plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against Chak without prejudice to its renewal at the conclusion of the case. On October 16, 2008, the parties reported to the Magistrate Judge that fact discovery had been completed.
On October 20, 2008, Counsel made a second request to withdraw from representation of Chak. Counsel stated in her letter that there had been a complete breakdown of communication between her office and Chak, and that she had not been in contact with Chak for over a year, despite numerous attempts to contact him. On October 22, 2008, plaintiff stated that it did not oppose Counsel's application, provided Council appraised plaintiff of Chak's known addresses, so that Chak could be served with process in the future. A copy of Counsel's motion was sent to Chak by email and to a Brooklyn address. On November 4, 2008, Council filed the copy of the letter sent to the Brooklyn address, which had been returned as undeliverable.
District courts have wide discretion in deciding whether to grant a motion for an attorney's withdrawal, Whiting v. Lacara, 187 F.3d 317, 320 (2d Cir. 1999).
Local Civil Rule 1.4 provides:
"[a]n attorney who has appeared as attorney of record for a party may be relieved or displaced only by order of the court and may not withdraw from a case without leave of the court granted by order. Such an order may be granted only upon a showing by affidavit or otherwise of satisfactory reasons for withdrawal or displacement and the posture of the case, including its position, if any, on the calendar.
"Satisfactory reasons include failure to pay legal fees, a client's lack of cooperation-including lack of communication-with counsel, and the existence of an irreconcilable conflict between attorney and client." Diarama Trading Co. v. J. Walter Thompson U.S.A., Inc., et al., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17008 at * 4 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (internal quotations omitted).
The Model Code of Professional Responsibility ("Model Code") provides guidance as to when this Court may grant a motion for withdrawal of counsel. Whiting, 187 F.3d at 321 (citing National Survival Games, Inc.). Under the Model Code, moving to withdraw is mandatory where "(1) The representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; (2) The lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client; or (3) The lawyer is discharged." Model Code, § 1.16(a); see also 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1200.15(b). Withdrawal under the Code is permissive where:
(1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client;
(2) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably ...