Patel et al v. Trivedi et al

Filing 72

ORDER granting 71 Second Amended Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, denying as moot 68 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, denying as moot 70 First Amended MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Luther O'Neal Sutter terminated. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on July 7, 2014. (mll)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION NATVERLAL PATEL and JASWANTI PATEL v. PLAINTIFFS Case No. 4:10-CV-04195 NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY DEFENDANT ORDER Now before the Court is the motion (Doc. 68) by law firm Sutter & Gillham, PLLC to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiffs Natverlal and Jaswanti Patel as well as an amended motion to withdraw (Doc. 70) and a second amended motion to withdraw (Doc. 71). The Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds that the second amended motion (Doc. 71) should be GRANTED, and Sutter & Gillham, PLLC,1 and specifically the attorney of record, Luther Sutter, is withdrawn as counsel for the Patels. The original motion (Doc. 68) and first amended motion (Doc. 70) are DENIED AS MOOT. The first amended motion indicated that Plaintiffs had retained other counsel. However, no notice of appearance has yet been entered by other counsel for Plaintiffs in this case, and the second amended motion represented that perhaps other counsel had not actually been hired by Plaintiffs. In any event, Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED to have another attorney enter an appearance on their behalf or, in the alternative, to advise the Court that they wish to represent themselves in this matter by proceeding without counsel, pro se. Such appearance must be entered or notification received on or before Monday, August 4, 2014. Plaintiffs are advised that their failure to comply with this 1 The Court notes that the firm listed for the attorney of record, Luther Sutter, is Harrill & Sutter, PLLC. The Court assumes that the firm name should be Sutter & Gillham, PLLC, as represented in Mr. Sutter’s motion. Mr. Sutter is advised to update his contact information on the CM/ECF system. order may result in the dismissal of their action for failure to obey a Court order and for failure to prosecute. If Plaintiffs file with the clerk of court a request for an extension of this deadline before August 4, 2014, the Court may extend the deadline if the Court finds that there is a good reason to do so. Mr. Sutter is directed to provide Plaintiffs with a copy of this order and to file an affidavit averring service or other proof of compliance with this order on the record. IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of July, 2014. /s/P. K. Holmes, III P.K. HOLMES, III CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

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?