Morris v. Jabber Jaw Mobile L.L.C. et al

Filing 27

ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants shall obtain new counsel and defendants substitute counsel shall enter an appearance on their behalf by May 30, 2013. Response to Court due by 5/30/2013. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 4/30/2013. (KSH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
PARIS MORRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JABBER JAW MOBILE L.L.C., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12-CV-917 CAS

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a motion for leave to withdraw as counsel for the
defendants Jabber Jaw Mobile, L.L.C., Jabber Jaw Mobile VZ, L.L.C., and Sean Hennessy, filed by
attorneys Doreen D. Dodson and Susan Nell Rowe. The motion states that the partners of Ms.
Dodson and Ms. Rowe’s law firm, The Stolar Partnership, LLP, have voted to dissolve the firm and
that the firm’s last day of operation will be April 30, 2013. The motion also states that the
defendants have been advised of the motion’s filing and that they consent to their attorneys’
withdrawal from this matter.
Generally, this Court will not allow counsel to withdraw unless substitute counsel enters an
appearance for the client. This general rule is especially significant in cases where the client is a
corporation. Artificial entities such as corporations can only act through agents, cannot appear pro
se, and must be represented by counsel. Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02
(1993) (artificial entities may appear in federal courts only through licensed attorneys); see also
Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 856-57 (8th Cir. 1996) (corporation was
technically in default as of the time its counsel withdrew).

This Court has adopted the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court of Missouri.
See E.D. Mo. L.R. 12.02. According to the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer may withdraw
from representation of a client if the withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect
on the interests of the client, or if good cause for withdrawal exists. See Missouri Supreme Court
Rule of Professional Conduct 4-1.16(b). “[A] lawyer shall continue representation when ordered to
do so by a tribunal notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.” R. Prof.
Conduct 4-1.16(c).
Two of the defendants represented by Ms. Dodson and Ms. Rowe in this matter are limited
liability corporations that cannot appear pro se. Therefore, these defendants must secure new
counsel, or be subject to having their answers stricken and possibly be subject to a default judgment
entered in favor of the plaintiff. These defendants cannot file any papers or motions in this case
except through a licensed attorney. The Court will withhold ruling on the motion to withdraw for
a period of thirty days from the date of this order, to allow the defendants time to obtain substitute
counsel. If defendant Hennessy fails to obtain substitute counsel within the time allowed, he may
be required to proceed to trial pro se, that is, without the assistance of counsel.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants shall obtain new counsel and defendants’
substitute counsel shall enter an appearance on their behalf by May 30, 2013.

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 30th day of April, 2013.
2