BREEN et al v. MINETA et al

Filing 334

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying defendants' motion for partial reconsideration of order granting Gebhardt's motion to withdraw from representation; and plaintiffs' new counsel shall submit a status report on or before January 4, 2017. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on December 14, 2016. (MA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
ANTHONY FOXX, SECRETARY OF
)
TRANSPORTATION, DEPARTMENT
)
OF TRANSPORTATION, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
KATHLEEN BREEN, et al.,

Civil Action No. 05-0654 (PLF)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On November 4, 2016, the Court granted Joseph D. Gebhardt’s Motion to
Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiffs. Order (Nov. 4, 2016) [Dkt. 321]. Upon consideration of
the Defendants’ Motion for Clarification and Partial Reconsideration of Order Granting
Gebhardt’s Motion to Withdraw From Representation (“Defendants’ Motion for Clarification
and Partial Reconsideration”) [Dkt. 323] and Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion for
Clarification and Partial Reconsideration of Order Granting Gebhardt’s Motion to Withdraw
From Representation (“Plaintiffs’ Response”) [Dkt. 328], the Court will clarify its November 4,
2016 Order and deny the defendants’ motion for partial reconsideration.
Joseph D. Gebhardt was the lead counsel for the plaintiffs in this case. He closed
his law firm, Gebhardt & Associates, in 2014. Plaintiffs’ Response Exhibit A. On August 18,
2016, Daniel K. Gebhardt, also a former partner at Gebhardt & Associates, filed an unopposed
Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiffs, stating that he is now a solo practitioner and “no
longer has the resources to devote to the case.” Unopposed Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for

Plaintiffs at 1 [Dkt. 300]. In his unopposed motion, Daniel Gebhardt stated that “[i]n light of the
fact that the Plaintiffs now have new competent counsel, it is appropriate for undersigned
counsel to be allowed to withdraw.” Id. at 1. He further represented that counsel for the
defendants had no opposition to his withdrawal. Id. The Court granted Daniel Gebhardt’s
motion to withdraw by minute order on September 27, 2016. Joseph Gebhardt filed a motion to
withdraw for the same reason; he no longer has the resources to provide plaintiffs with
representation in this case. See Plaintiffs’ Response Exhibit B; Letter from Joseph D. Gebhardt
(Dec. 2, 2016) at 1 [Dkt. 333].
After the closure of Gebhardt & Associates, there has been confusion regarding
which plaintiffs have chosen to pursue their claims pro se and which have obtained
representation through plaintiffs’ new counsel, Joseph M. Sellers and Gary M. Gilbert. See
Defendants’ Motion for Clarification and Partial Reconsideration at 1 n.1. Plaintiffs’ counsel
have reached out to all of the plaintiffs previously represented by Joseph Gebhardt. Plaintiffs’
Notice of Filing Regarding the Individuals Who Have Retained Plaintiffs’ Counsel at 1-2 [Dkt.
307]. Plaintiffs’ counsel have also reached out to the 663 plaintiffs who were previously
dismissed from this case. Plaintiffs’ Notice of Filing Regarding the Individuals Who Have
Retained Plaintiffs’ Counsel at 1 n.3 [Dkt. 313]. Due to the many years that have passed in this
case and a lack of accurate contact information for all plaintiffs, many of the plaintiffs have not
responded to letters from plaintiffs’ new counsel, and some letters have been returned as
undeliverable. See id.; Plaintiffs’ Response at 2.
The Court granted Joseph Gebhardt’s motion to withdraw based on the following
information: (1) Joseph Gebhardt’s law firm is now closed and he no longer has the means to
represent the plaintiffs in this case; (2) Daniel Gebhardt’s unopposed motion to withdraw

2

because he also no longer has the means to represent the plaintiffs in this case; (3) the
representation in Daniel Gebhardt’s motion that the plaintiffs in this case now have competent
counsel; and (4) the efforts of plaintiffs’ new counsel to reach all of the named and dismissed
plaintiffs previously represented by Joseph Gebhardt.
The present motion to withdraw did not comply with Local Civil Rule 83.6(c)
because it did not state that notice of Joseph Gebhardt’s motion to withdraw had been given to
each party not currently represented by plaintiffs’ counsel. The Court is satisfied, however, that
the efforts by plaintiffs’ new counsel to reach the named and dismissed plaintiffs in this case
constitutes a sufficient effort to notify them that they may need to obtain new counsel, retain Mr.
Sellers or Mr. Gilbert, or proceed pro se. Given the difficulties that plaintiffs’ new counsel have
had in attempting to reach these individuals, it is unlikely that Joseph Gebhardt would be more
successful in that endeavor.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendants’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Order
Granting Gebhardt’s Motion to Withdraw From Representation [Dkt. 323] is DENIED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ new counsel shall submit a status report on
or before January 4, 2017, on their continuing efforts to contact the plaintiffs previously
represented by Joseph Gebhardt and include an updated list of plaintiffs who have retained
plaintiffs’ counsel, plaintiffs who have chosen to proceed pro se, and the individuals who have

3

not responded to letters from plaintiffs’ counsel or for whom letters have been returned as
undeliverable.
SO ORDERED.

/s/________________________
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
United States District Judge
DATE: December 14, 2016

4