Zurich American Insurance Company v. Fikes Truck Line, LLC

Filing 33

ORDER denying 30 Motion to Withdraw. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on January 7, 2016. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
v.

PLAINTIFF

Case No. 4:15-cv-04019

FIKES TRUCK LINE, LLC

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Before the Court is the Motion to Withdraw filed by Defendant’s counsel, Cynthia W. Kolb
and J.E. Jess Sweere of Cross, Gunter, Witherspoon, & Galchus, P.C. (ECF No. 30). Plaintiff has
filed a response. (ECF No. 31). Defendant has replied. (ECF No. 32). The Court finds this matter
ripe for its consideration.
On October 27, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment stating
that they had reached a settlement agreement. (ECF No. 15). The Court granted the Motion on
October 29, 2015, dismissing the case in accordance with the settlement agreement. (ECF No. 16).
Since that time, Defendant has apparently defaulted on the settlement agreement with Plaintiff, and
Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Compel Post-Judgment Discovery Requests which is currently
pending on the Court’s docket.
Defendant’s counsel has moved to withdraw. Counsel for Defendant asserts that their
representation of Defendant ended with Defendant’s full agreement and knowledge on October 29,
2015. Plaintiff objects to the withdraw of Defendant’s counsel because Defendant is a corporate
entity that cannot represent itself pro se. Defendant also asserts that the Court should not permit
counsel to withdraw before Defendant has fully responded to Plaintiff’s post-judgment discovery
requests, and that it will be prejudiced if counsel withdraws because Plaintiff’s right to post-

judgment discovery may be delayed or thwarted.
The Local Rules provide that no attorney shall withdraw except by leave of Court after
reasonable notice has been given to the client and opposing counsel. Local Rule 83.5(f). The Court
has discretion in granting leave to withdraw. In federal court, a corporation may not represent itself
pro se. See Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993). While there may be a
situation in which an attorney would be permitted to withdraw even if their corporate client may
remain without a lawyer, see, e.g., Buschmeier v. G&G Investments, Inc., 222 Fed. Appx. 160 (3d
Cir. 2007), the Court finds that, in this situation, counsel should remain. Defendant has a pending
motion to compel before the Court which must be ruled upon to assure a timely closure of this
matter. Without Defendant’s attorneys, the Court will have no way to communicate with the
Defendant corporation. The Court finds that Plaintiff will be prejudiced if counsel is permitted to
withdraw, and that Defendant’s counsel has not shown that they will be significantly prejudiced by
remaining in this proceeding. In the interest of a proper conclusion of this case and the management
of the Court’s docket, the Court will not permit Defendant’s attorney to withdraw.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 7th day of January, 2016.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge