Canopius Capital Two Limited et al v. Jeanne Estates Apartments, Inc. et al

Filing 142

ORDER denying 138 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney; denying 140 Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on September 15, 2015. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
CANOPIUS CAPITAL TWO LIMITED, et al

VS.

PLAINTIFFS

CASE NO. 11-CV-4070

JEANNE ESTATES APARTMENTS, INC.,
et al

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 138) filed on behalf of John Rogers,
attorney for Separate Defendants Jeanne Estates Apartments, Inc., Cherry Hill Printing, Inc., and
Don Wolf a/k/a Donn Wolfe. Also before the Court is a Motion for Extension of Time to File
Dispositive Motions (ECF No. 140) filed on behalf of Separate Defendants Jeanne Estates
Apartments, Inc., Cherry Hill Printing, Inc., and Don Wolf a/k/a Donn Wolfe. Plaintiffs have
filed a response (ECF No. 141) to the Motion for Extension of Time. The Court finds these
matters ripe for consideration.
Separate Defendants’ attorney, John Rogers, states that he “undertook counsel
representation of Separate Defendants in this matter due to his representation of clients in a
closely related federal case, Kolbek, et. al v. Twenty-First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church
et al., 4:10-cv-04124.” John Rogers now requests that he be permitted to withdraw because
“further representation in this matter is substantially beyond the scope of the representation
undertaken on behalf of Separate Defendants” in the related Kolbek case. Mr. Rogers also states
that he has not received compensation for his continued representation of Separate Defendants in
this matter. Along with his Motion to Withdraw, Mr. Rogers has filed a Motion for Extension on

behalf of Separate Defendants requesting that their deadline to file dispositive motions be
extended so that they might have the opportunity to find new representation.
Upon consideration of the motions (ECF Nos. 138 & 140), the Court finds that they
should be and hereby are DENIED. This litigation has been pending for several years, and the
September 18 deadline for filing dispositive motions is quickly approaching. The Court declines
to extend these deadlines any further. To allow Mr. Rogers to withdraw at this particular time
would be highly prejudicial to Separate Defendants because it would leave them without
adequate time find an attorney to respond to dispositive motions filed by Plaintiffs or to file
dispositive motions on their behalf, if necessary. Mr. Rogers may refile his Motion to Withdraw
after the dispositive motions period, and the Court will reconsider whether withdrawal might be
appropriate at that time.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 15th day of September, 2015.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

2