Christopher v. RJM Acquisitions LLC

Filing 70

ORDER that LBBS's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant RJM Acquisitions, LLC without Immediate Substitution, (Doc. 63 ), is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall refer this matter by random draw to a Unite d States Magistrate Judge to resolve Plaintiff's Motion for Appearance and Examination of Judgment Debtor RJM Acquisitions, LLC, (Doc. 68 ), which remains pending. LATER - Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett is drawn by random lot. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 5/13/16. (KGM)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Jennifer Christopher,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-13-02274-PHX-JAT

RJM Acquisitions LLC,

13

Defendant.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP (“LBBS”)’s

16

Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant RJM Acquisitions, LLC without

17

Immediate Substitution. (Doc. 63). The Court now rules on the motion.

18

I.

Legal Standard

19

Pursuant to the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the District of Arizona,

20

(b) Withdrawal and Substitution. No attorney shall be permitted to
withdraw or be substituted as attorney of record in any pending action
except by formal written order of the Court, supported by written
application setting forth the reasons therefor together with the name, last
known residence and last known telephone number of the client, as follows:

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(1) Where such application bears the written approval of the
client, it shall be accompanied by a proposed written order and may
be presented to the Court ex parte. The withdrawing attorney shall
give prompt notice of the entry of such order, together with the
name, last known residence and last known telephone number of the
client, to all other parties or their attorneys.
LRCiv 83.3(b)(1). When ruling on a motion to withdraw brought pursuant to LRCiv 83.3,
the Court should consider the following factors: “(1) the reasons why withdrawal is

1

sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm

2

withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which

3

withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Gagan v. Monroe, 2013 WL 1339935,

4

at *4 (D. Ariz. April 1, 2013).

5
6

Also relevant is Ethical Rule 1.16 of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct,
which provides as follows:
(a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a
client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the
representation of a client if:

7
8
9

...

10

(3) the lawyer is discharged.

11

....
(c) A lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or
permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation. When ordered
to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation
notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.

12
13
14
15

Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 42, ER 1.16.

16

II.

Analysis

17

LBBS contends that the Court should allow it to withdraw as Defendant’s counsel

18

because: (1) Defendant affirmatively discharged LBBS and (2) continued representation

19

would likely result in an unreasonable financial burden on LBBS. (Docs. 61, 63). In

20

response, Plaintiff argues that the Court should exercise its “wide discretion” and deny

21

LBBS’s request because: (1) the motion to withdraw did not include Defendant’s last

22

known address and telephone number and thus failed to technically comply with

23

LRCiv 83.3; (2) the majority of LBBS’s representation has already concluded; and

24

(3) post-judgment discovery requests are still outstanding and Defendant, as a

25

corporation, cannot represent itself. (Doc. 66).

26

Despite being absent from the parties’ briefing, the Court concludes that it lacks

27

authority to rule on LBBS’s request because once Judgment was entered in favor of

28

Plaintiff on February 3, 2015, see (Doc. 46), this case closed. See, e.g., Booth v. Arpaio,

-2-

1

2007 WL 42449075, at * (D. Ariz. Nov. 29, 2007) (denying a motion as moot “[b]ecause

2

this case is closed, with judgment having been entered”); Neuendorf v. John C. Lincoln

3

Med., 2011 WL 941352, at *1 (D. Ariz. Mar. 18, 2011) (denying a motion as moot

4

“[b]ecause Judgment was entered” and the party’s “appeal has been dismissed”); Garcia

5

v. Glendale Police Dep’t, 2014 WL 2197027, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 27, 2014) (denying a

6

motion as moot because the “case has been closed by the Clerk’s Judgment dismissing

7

the case”). Because no “pending action”—as contemplated by LRCiv 83.3(b)—is before

8

the Court, Defendant may discharge LBBS without the Court’s permission.

9

Consequently, based on statements made to the Court, the parties should consider

10

LBBS’s representation of Defendant in this matter to be terminated.1

11

III.

Conclusion

12

For the reasons set forth above,

13

IT IS ORDERED that LBBS’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant

14

RJM Acquisitions, LLC without Immediate Substitution, (Doc. 63), is DENIED as moot.

15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall refer this matter by

16

random draw to a United States Magistrate Judge to resolve Plaintiff’s Motion for

17

Appearance and Examination of Judgment Debtor RJM Acquisitions, LLC, (Doc. 68),

18

which remains pending.

19

Dated this 13th day of May, 2016.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Even if the Court had authority to rule on LBBS’s motion, the four factors set
forth above weigh heavily in favor of permitting withdrawal. The most compelling reason
is the fact that Defendant affirmatively terminated LBBS after this case closed. Not only
was LBBS obligated under the Ethical Rules to withdraw as Defendant’s counsel, but a
conflict of interest would surely arise if the Court required LBBS to continue in its
representation. Furthermore, the Court would overlook Defendant’s technical noncompliance with LRCiv 83.3 as Plaintiff did not show prejudice by the non-compliance,
and LBBS ultimately provided the necessary information. See Gagan, 2013 WL
1339935, at *3 (overlooking a party’s technical non-compliance with LRCiv 83.3).
-3-