Amedysis Western, L.L.C. v. Bartel

Filing 40

RULING granting 37 Motion to Review Order denying 35 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, and Gold Weems' Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/2/2015. (LLH) Modified on 10/2/2015 to edit text (LLH).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

AMEDISYS WESTERN, L.L.C.

CIVIL ACTION NO.

VERSUS

14-658-SDD-SCR

CHRISTINE BARTEL

RULING
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Review Order Denying Motion to
Withdraw as Counsel1 filed by Gold, Weems, Brusers, Sues, & Rundell, APLC (“Gold
Weems”), local counsel for Defendant Christine Bartel.

Gold Weems moved to

withdraw as local counsel on September 9, 2015, assuring that it had complied with all
federal and local requirements for such a withdrawal. On September 11, 2015, the
Magistrate Judge denied, without prejudice, Gold Weems’ motion to withdraw, finding
that: “Granting the motion will leave the defendant with no local counsel, as required by
Local Rule 83(b)(7). … The motion is denied because no local counsel will be
substituted and the defendant has not made a showing of hardship.”2
Gold Weems now seeks review of this Order, arguing that the Magistrate Judge
has added to the requirements of Rule 74(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and Local Civil Rule 83(b)(13). “When reviewing a magistrate judge's ruling on
nondispositive matters, a district court may ‘modify or set aside any part of the order
1
2

Rec. Doc. No. 37.
Rec. Doc. No. 36.

28860 
Page 1 of 3 

that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.’”3
Local Rule 83(b)(13) provides as follows:
Continuing Representation, Withdrawals, Substitution of
Counsel. The original counsel of record shall be held to represent the
party for whom counsel appears unless the Court permits said counsel to
withdraw from the case. Counsel may obtain permission only upon joint
motion to substitute counsel or upon a written motion served on opposing
counsel and the client before the Court acts. If other counsel is not
thereby substituted, the motion to withdraw shall contain the present
address of the client and the client's telephone number if the client can be
reached by telephone. The motion shall contain a certification by counsel
that the client has been notified of all deadlines and pending court
appearances. The certificate of service accompanying the motion shall
indicate that it was served on the client by certified mail or an affidavit
shall be included stating why such service has not been made.4
Local Rule 83(b)(7) provides that, “[i]n all cases before this Court, any party who
does not appear in proper person must be represented by a member of the bar of this
Court, except as set forth below.”
The Ruling of the Magistrate Judge appears to place the burden on Gold
Weems, rather than the Defendant, to obtain new local counsel if current counsel
withdraws. Rule 83(b)(13), as emphasized above, clearly states that counsel seeking to
withdraw have two options for this endeavor: “upon joint motion to substitute counsel or
upon a written motion served on opposing counsel and the client before the Court acts.”
It is not required that new counsel be simultaneously substituted for counsel to
withdraw.

3

Shah v. Jefferson Parish School Bd., No. 11-2517, 2013 WL 6335874 (E.D. La. Dec. 5, 2013)(quoting
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72; Ferrington v. McMoRan Exploration Co., No. 12–588, 2013 WL 5353310, *1 (E.D.La.,
September 24, 2013) (Zainey, J.) (applying “clearly erroneous” standard when reviewing magistrate
judge's denial of motion to compel)).
4
Emphasis added.

28860 
Page 2 of 3 

Further, under Local Rule 83(b)(7), the Defendant is not required to obtain local
counsel; rather, she also has the option of appearing in proper person, unless she can
satisfy the requirements of Local Rule 83(b)(9) to proceed with non-local counsel. The
Court agrees with Gold Weems that the applicable rules do not require that substitute
counsel already be appointed for current counsel to withdraw. As such, the Court finds
that the Magistrate Judge’s Order is contrary to the law.
Trial in this matter is set for October 3, 2016, and the next pending deadline
appears to be November 24, 2015. The Court finds that Gold Weems has complied
with the requirements of the Local Rules for withdrawing as counsel. The Court also
finds that the burden to proceed pro se or to obtain new local counsel is on the
Defendant, not Gold Weems. The Defendant shall have until November 1, 2015 to
advise the Court that she is proceeding in proper person or that she has obtained new
local counsel.
Accordingly, the Motion to Review Order Denying Motion to Withdraw as
Counsel5 is GRANTED, and Gold Weems’ Motion to Withdraw6 is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on October 2, 2015.

S

JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
5
6

Rec. Doc. No. 37.
Rec. Doc. No. 35.

28860 
Page 3 of 3