Wells v. Altenburg et al

Filing 57

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 50 Defendant Skynet's Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
SHAWNA WELLS,
Case No. 4:14-cv-00450-BLW
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
SKYNET DIGITAL, LLC, an Idaho
limited liability company, d/b/a
MEDICAL SPECIALTIES OF IDAHO;
AARON J. ALTENBURG, M.D.,
individually; and AARON J.
ALTENBURG, M.D., P.C., an Idaho
Professional Corporation,
Defendants.

The Court has before it Defendant Skynet’s Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of
Record (Dkt. 50). Counsel for Skynet asks to withdraw because Skynet has dissolved.
“No attorney of record who is the sole representative for a party may withdraw from
representing that party without leave of the Court.” Dist. Idaho Loc. R. 83.6(c)(1).
Generally, in addressing a motion to withdraw as counsel, district courts consider
whether the suit will be disrupted by the withdrawal, and considerations of judicial
economy weigh heavily in favor of giving district judges wide latitude in these situations.
Whiting v. Lacara, 187 F.3d 317, 321 (2nd Cir. 1999).

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

The Court has some serious concerns about allowing counsel to withdraw from
representing Skynet at this point. As suggested by Plaintiff’s counsel, Skynet’s
“dissolution” does not necessarily mean Skynet no longer exists. Skynet’s Operating
Agreement specifies that it is created pursuant to the Limited Liability Company Act as it
existed when the Operating Agreement was executed. Ulrich Decl., Ex. A, p. 1, Dkt. 522. The act states that a “dissolved limited liability company shall wind up its activities,
and the company continues after dissolution only for the purpose of winding up.” I.C. §
30-6-702(1). A company “[s]hall discharge the company’s debts, obligations or other
liabilities, settle and close the company’s activities, and marshal and distribute the assets
of the company.” I.C. § 30-6-702(2)(a). A company may also “[p]rosecute and defend
actions and proceedings, whether civil, criminal or administrative;” “[s]ettle disputes by
mediation or arbitration;” and “[p]erform other acts necessary or appropriate to the
winding up.” Id.
Skynet’s own Operating Agreement appears to recognize these wrapping up
requirements. It states that “[u]pon dissolution of the Company, the Members shall, in the
name and on behalf of the Company, take all actions reasonably necessary to wind up the
Company pursuant to the Act.” Ulrich Decl., Ex. A, ¶ 10.2, Dkt. 52-2. Only “[u]pon
completion of the winding up, liquidation and distribution of assets, the Company shall
be deemed terminated.” Id.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

Questions also remain about the relationship between Skynet and newly formed
MSI. These questions likely will not be answered until a response to the amended
complaint is filed.
Under these circumstances, the Court finds that allowing counsel to withdraw
from representing Skynet at this point would significantly disrupt the litigation. There
may be a time when counsel will be allowed to withdraw – but now is not that time.
Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion.
ORDER
1. Defendant Skynet’s Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record (Dkt. 50) is
DENIED.

DATED: June 2, 2016
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3