Cottman et al v. Naskrent et al

Filing 76

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that by January 14, 2019, Counsel must mail this Order and the new Case Management Order (forthcoming) to all Defendants and file a certificate in which Counsel certifies that the Orders have been sent. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED t hat upon receipt of a new certificate by Counsel complying with this Order, the Motion for Leave to Withdraw As Attorney for Defendants Without Client Consent (Doc. 70 ), filed by movants Jeffrey H. Wolf and J. Alexander Dattilo of Quarles & Brady LLP, attorneys of record for Defendants David G. Naskrent, Matthew J. and Corrina Surma, Cory Lee Hughes, Corey B. Cleghorn, DPHC Enterprise Inc., and DHSC Enterprise Inc. will be GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon receipt of a new certifica te by Counsel complying with this Order, Jeffrey H. Wolf and J. Alexander Dattilo of Quarles & Brady LLP will be withdrawn as counsel of record for Defendants, and the Clerk shall remove Quarles & Brady LLP and attorneys Jeffrey H. Wolf and J. Alexander Dattilo from ECF noticing in this matter [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 1/2/19. (MAW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Robert P. Cottman, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

David G. Naskrent, et al.,

13

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-02045-PHX-DWL

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Leave to Withdraw As Attorney for

16

Defendants Without Client Consent (Doc. 70), filed by movants Jeffrey H. Wolf and J.

17

Alexander Dattilo of Quarles & Brady LLP (“Counsel”), attorneys of record for Defendants

18

David G. Naskrent, Matthew J. and Corrina Surma, Cory Lee Hughes, Corey B. Cleghorn,

19

DPHC Enterprise Inc., and DHSC Enterprise Inc. Counsel stated that Defendants have

20

failed to respond to Counsel’s communications and have failed to pay substantial portions

21

of the attorneys’ fees for a substantial amount of time. (Doc. 70 at 2.) Counsel further

22

stated that some but not all Defendants have consented to Counsel withdrawing, and those

23

who did not provide consent also did not express any objection. (Id. at 3.) Good cause

24

appearing, the Court will provisionally grant the motion, subject to the following condition.

25

Pursuant to LRCiv 83.3(b)(2), Counsel must include a certificate “of the attorney

26

making the motion” that the clients have been “notified in writing of the status of the case,

27

including the dates and times of any court hearings or trial settings, pending compliance

28

with any existing court orders and the possibility of sanctions,” or an averment that the

1

clients cannot be located. Counsel instead included a certificate signed by Jeannie Fraser,

2

“[a]n employee of Quarles & Brady LLP,” certifying that she had emailed and mailed to

3

each Defendant a copy of the Motion for Leave to Withdraw As Attorney for Defendants

4

Without Client Consent. (Doc. 70 at 4.) The Motion does include some status information:

5

“This matter has not been set for trial. From the date of this filing, the close of discovery

6

is over four months away.” (Id. at 2.) The Court finds this to be insufficient, as it does not

7

include the deadlines which must be met to comply with the Court’s scheduling orders

8

(Docs. 22, 62).

9

Nevertheless, to simplify matters and ensure that the Court’s procedural preferences

10

are met, the Court shall supplant the previous scheduling orders with its own Case

11

Management Order, forthcoming. Counsel is ordered to mail the new Case Management

12

Order, as well as this Order provisionally granting the Motion to Withdraw, to all

13

Defendants and file a certificate in which Counsel certifies that the Orders have been sent.

14

In their Response, Plaintiffs noted that two of the Defendants (DPHC Enterprise

15

Inc. and DHSC Enterprise Inc.) are business entities, which cannot appear in federal court

16

without representation. (Doc. 72.) The corporate Defendants are on notice that they may

17

appear in this Court only through an attorney admitted to practice in this Court. See

18

Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202

19

(1993). Failure to obtain an attorney will be grounds for sanctions, including potentially

20

the entry of a default judgment. If the corporate Defendants attempt to appear in this Court

21

without an attorney, Plaintiffs may move for appropriate relief at that time.

22

Therefore,

23

IT IS ORDERED that by January 14, 2019, Counsel must mail this Order and the

24

new Case Management Order (forthcoming) to all Defendants and file a certificate in which

25

Counsel certifies that the Orders have been sent.

26

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon receipt of a new certificate by Counsel

27

complying with this Order, the Motion for Leave to Withdraw As Attorney for Defendants

28

Without Client Consent (Doc. 70), filed by movants Jeffrey H. Wolf and J. Alexander

-2-

1

Dattilo of Quarles & Brady LLP (“Counsel”), attorneys of record for Defendants David G.

2

Naskrent, Matthew J. and Corrina Surma, Cory Lee Hughes, Corey B. Cleghorn, DPHC

3

Enterprise Inc., and DHSC Enterprise Inc. will be GRANTED.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon receipt of a new certificate by Counsel

5

complying with this Order, Jeffrey H. Wolf and J. Alexander Dattilo of Quarles & Brady

6

LLP will be withdrawn as counsel of record for Defendants, and the Clerk shall remove

7

Quarles & Brady LLP and attorneys Jeffrey H. Wolf and J. Alexander Dattilo from ECF

8

noticing in this matter.

9

Dated this 2nd day of January, 2019.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-