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)
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?