Securities And Exchange Commission v. Torchia et al
Filing
150
ORDER AND OPINION. Katherine S. Addleman, Stephen L. Corso, and Timothy A. Newman's Renewed Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record for James A. Torchia, Credit Nation Capital, LLC, and the Other Defendants 142 is GRANTED. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 6/13/2016. (bgt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:15-cv-3904-WSD
JAMES A. TORCHIA, CREDIT
NATION CAPITAL, LLC, CREDIT
NATION ACCEPTANCE, LLC,
CREDIT NATION AUTO SALES,
LLC, AMERICAN MOTOR
CREDIT, LLC, and SPAGHETTI
JUNCTION, LLC,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Katherine S. Addleman, Stephen
L. Corso, and Timothy A. Newman’s (together, “Haynes and Boone”) Renewed
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record for James A. Torchia, Credit Nation
Capital, LLC, and the Other Defendants (together, “Defendants”) [142] (“Second
Motion to Withdraw”).
I.
BACKGROUND
On May 12, 2016, Haynes and Boone filed their Motion to Withdraw [97]
(“First Motion to Withdraw”). In it, they stated that Defendants are represented by
lead counsel James M. Johnson, and that withdrawal thus will not have a “material
adverse impact on the Defendants’ interests or delay the trial of this case.” (Mot.
to Withdraw at 2). Haynes and Boone stated that “[a] conflict has arisen, and the
Defendants have failed to comply with the terms of their engagement with Haynes
and Boone, LLP.” (Id.). By “email and letter dated May 5, 2016, [“May 5th
Notice”] Ms. Addleman informed Defendants that Haynes and Boone was
terminating the representation of the Defendants and requested Mr. Torchia sign a
Certificate of Consent to Withdrawal. Mr. Torchia failed to respond in any way to
that communication.” (Id.). On May 11, 2016, Haynes and Boone sent
Defendants a second notice (“May 11th Notice”) informing Defendants of Haynes
and Boone’s “intent to request permission to withdraw.” (Id. at 3). A copy of the
May 11th Notice is attached to Haynes and Boone’s First Motion to Withdraw.
On May 13, 2016, the Court entered an Order [99] denying Haynes and
Boone’s First Motion to Withdraw. The Court noted that “[n]either the May 5th
Notice nor the May 11th Notice complies with the requirements of Local Rule
83.1, because Haynes and Boone have not given Defendants fourteen (14) days
prior notice of their intent to request permission to withdraw.” (May 13, 2016,
Order at 2-3).
2
On June 1, 2016, Haynes and Boone filed their Second Motion to Withdraw.
In it, they state that they “have given the Defendants fourteen (14) days prior
notice of our intention to request permission to withdraw” by notifying Defendants
“in a letter dated May 11, 2016 that we intend to request permission to withdraw.”
(Second Mot. to Withdraw at 3). Haynes and Boone served the May 11th Notice
on Mr. Torchia at his last known address on May 12, 2016, and via email to
Mr. Torchia on May 11, 2016. (Id.). A copy of the May 11th Notice was attached
to the Second Motion to Withdraw.
II.
DISCUSSION
Under Local Rule 83.1(E)(2)(b), a motion to withdraw as counsel must
“state that the attorney has given the client fourteen (14) days prior notice of the
attorney’s intention to request permission to withdraw.” LR 83.1(E)(2)(b), NDGa.
Such notice must be served upon the client “personally or at that client’s last
known address.” Id.
Haynes and Boone have met the requirements of Local Rule 83.1(E)(2)(b)
because they gave Defendants fourteen (14) days prior notice of their intent to
withdraw, and served Mr. Torchia at his last known address. Haynes and Boone’s
motion is granted.
3
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Katherine S. Addleman, Stephen
L. Corso, and Timothy A. Newman’s Renewed Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of
Record for James A. Torchia, Credit Nation Capital, LLC, and the Other
Defendants [142] is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED this 13th day of June, 2016.
4
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?