Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation v. Prestige Imports of Thomasville Inc et al

Filing 51

ORDER directing defense counsel to amend the 50 Motion to Withdraw not later than 11/26/2012. Said amended motion should comply with Local Rule 83.1.4. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 11/1/2012. (nbp)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 7:10-cv-129 (HL) PRESTIGE IMPORTS OF THOMASVILLE, INC., d/b/a Prestige Honda of Thomasville; PRESTIGE MOTORCAR GALLERY, INC., d/b/a Prestige Infiniti, and MICHAEL CRAIG HORNSBY, Defendants. ORDER Before the Court is a Motion to Withdraw (Doc. 50), filed by counsel for the Defendants, Mr. Robert Byerts and Mr. John D. Holt. Counsel requests permission to withdraw based on irreconcilable differences that have arisen between counsel and Defendants. To evaluate this Motion properly, the Motion must comply with Local Rule 83.1.4, which governs the withdrawal of attorneys in civil cases. In pertinent part, the Rule requires that attorneys give written notice to their clients respecting their intent to withdraw fourteen days before filing their official Motion to Withdraw with the Court. This notice to the client must include certain information which is outlined in the Rule. The Court orders defense counsel to amend their Motion to Withdraw to reflect that they have complied with this provision of the Local Rules. Additionally, because Defendant Michael Hornsby will be left to proceed pro se in this action, the Court orders defense counsel to obtain written permission from Mr. Hornsby to withdraw. These amendments to the Motion to Withdraw are due no later than November 26, 2012. At that point, the Court will consider the Motion on its merits. SO ORDERED, this 1st day of November, 2012. s/ Hugh Lawson HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE ebr   2  

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?