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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?