Giove v. Holden et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER- granting 35 MOTION for Jeffrey K. Martin to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Jeffrey K. Martin terminated. Set Deadlines: ( Notice of Compliance deadline set for 9/6/2013.) Signed by Judge Sherry R. Fallon on 8/6/2013. (lih)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
GUY D. GlOVE,
DWIGHT F. HOLDEN and
COL. ROBERT COUPE,
Civil Action No. 11-735-SLR-SRF
At Wilmington this 6th day of August, 2013,
IT IS ORDERED that the unopposed Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (D.I. 35) filed by
plaintiff's Delaware counsel, Jeffrey K. Martin ("Martin"), is GRANTED, and on or before
September 6, 2013, plaintiff is required to comply with D. Del. LR 83.5(d), requiring association
with Delaware counsel, for the following reasons:
Background. Plaintiff initiated this civil action on August 19, 2011 and
subsequently amended the complaint twice, alleging causes of action for violation of the
Delaware Sex Offender Registration Law, defamation, and violation of plaintiff's due process
rights. (D.I. 28) Plaintiff's contentions stem from defendants' allegedly erroneous publication
of plaintiff's name on the Delaware Sex Offender Registry despite plaintiff's Tier I designation,
which does not require public notification. Presently pending before the court is Martin's
unopposed Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, which cites irreconcilable differences between local
and primary counsel. (D.I. 35)
Legal Standard. This court's Local Rule 83.7, titled "Substitution and
Withdrawal of Attorney," provides that:
An attorney may withdraw an appearance for a party without the Court's
permission when such withdrawal will leave a member of the Bar of this Court
appearing as counsel of record for the party. Otherwise, no appearance shall be
withdrawn except by order on a motion duly noticed to each party and served on
the party client, at least 14 days before the motion is presented, by registered or
certified mail addressed to the client's last known address.
D. Del. LR 83. 7. "When a motion to withdraw is filed, and substitute counsel has not entered an
appearance on the affected party's behalf, the decision as to whether to allow counsel to
withdraw its representation is within the discretion of the Court." Ohntrup v. Firearms Ctr., Inc.,
802 F.2d 676, 679 (3d Cir. 1986).
In Worldspan, L.P. v. Ultimate Living Group, LLC, C.A. No. 03-1081-JJF, 2006
WL 1046942 (D. Del. Apr. 20, 2006), this court set forth a list of factors to be considered in
ruling upon a motion to withdraw where, as here, the affected party is an individual: (1) the
reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to the litigants; (3)
the delay in the resolution of the case which would result from withdrawal; and (4) the effect of
withdrawal on the efficient administration of justice. !d. at * 1.
Discussion. Martin has cited irreconcilable differences with plaintiffs primary
counsel, and his motion is unopposed. (D.I. 35
2, 4) Plaintiff will not suffer undue
prejudice or a delay in the resolution of the case as a result of the withdrawal because the case
has not progressed beyond the pleadings stage and no scheduling order has been entered. "When
courts have denied such motions due in part to the state of the case schedule, it has almost
uniformly been because the motion to withdraw was made at or near trial .... " Sharp v. Verizon
Del. Inc., C.A. No. 11-1209-RGA-CJB, 2012 WL 6212615, at *4 (D. Del. Dec. 12, 2012).
Moreover, the withdrawal is unlikely to negatively affect the administration of justice because
primary counsel may continue to represent plaintiff upon obtaining substitute local counsel.
Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, the balance of the Worldspan factors
weigh in favor of granting the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. The Motion to Withdraw as
Counsel is GRANTED, and primary counsel is required to associate with Delaware counsel on
or before September 6, 2013. See D. Del. LR 83.5(d) & (e).
This Memorandum Order is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(A), Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a), and D. Del. LR 72.1. The parties may serve and file specific written objections
within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Memorandum Order. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a). The written objections and responses to the objections are limited to five (5) pages
The parties are directed to the court's Standing Order in Non-ProSe Matters for
Objections Filed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, dated November 16, 2009, a copy of which is
available on the court's website, http://www.ded.uscourts.gov.
Because this Memorandum Order addresses a non-dispositive motion, any
objections filed will not affect the findings, rulings, or decisions herein during the pendency of a
decision on the objections.
Dated: August 6, 2013
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?