Robinson et al v. Ryla Teleservices, Inc.

Filing 94

ORDER granting 93 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Individual Plaintiff Makelia Wingard. Signed by Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady on 9/29/2011. copies to parties. (sdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHASITY ROBINSON and
MAKELIA WINGARD, individually
and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals,
Plaintiffs,

:
:

vs.

:

RYLA TELESERVICES, INC.,

:

Defendant.

CA 11-0131-KD-C

:
ORDER

The law firm Nichols Kaster, PLLP has filed a renewed motion to withdraw as
counsel for plaintiff Makelia Wingard (Doc. 93).1 Because, first, the motion presents
good cause to withdraw from this representation—Wingard’s failure to respond to her
counsel’s attempt(s) to contact her after she failed to appear for her rescheduled
deposition on September 16, 2011 (id. at 1-2)2—and, second, counsel has served a copy of

Although counsel’s initial motion to withdraw (Doc. 85; see also Doc. 86)
presented the Court with good cause to justify counsel’s request to
withdraw—Wingard’s failure to respond to her counsel’s numerous attempts to contact
her after she failed to appear for her deposition on August 17, 2011—it was denied
because counsel did not comply with the Court’s Local Rules. (See generally Doc. 87.)
1

A client’s “continual failure to respond to any of counsel’s
communications” is good cause to support counsel’s motion to withdraw from their
representation of that client. Stockwell v. City & County of San Francisco, No. C 08-5180
PJH, 2011 WL 203833, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011); see also Waters v. E.P. Architectural
Builders, Inc., No. C 10-03193 LB, 2011 WL 482769, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011) (“There is
2

the motion on Ms. Wingard (see Docs. 93-1 & 93-2), in compliance with the Court’s Local
Rules, see S.D. ALA. L.R. 83.5(h), the Courts finds that the motion should be—and it is
hereby—GRANTED.
DONE and ORDERED this the 29th day of September, 2011.
s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

good cause to grant defense counsel’s motion to withdraw because Defendants have
failed to communicate with counsel about the direction of the case.”); Christian v. Frank,
Civil No. 04-00743 DAE-LK, 2011 WL 801966, at *1 (D. Haw. Feb. 10, 2011) (“In
determining whether there is good cause for withdrawal, courts have considered
whether the client is cooperative and willing to assist the attorney in the case.”) (citations
omitted); Universal-Polygram Int’l Publ’g Inc. v. Prairie Broad. Co., Civil No. 09-CV-0576
(PJS/RLE), 2009 WL 1955618, at *4 (D. Minn. July 7, 2009) (“[G]ood cause exists to
support [counsel’s] withdrawal from [his or her] representation of [a client], based upon
the [client’s] failure and refusal to communicate with their counsel[.]”); Hershey v.
Berkeley, No. EDCV 07-689-VAP (JCRx), 2008 WL 4723610, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2008)
(“The Court finds the Plaintiffs’ failure to communicate with their attorneys constitutes
good cause for the attorneys to seek withdrawal from representing the clients.”) (citation
omitted).

2