Charles Allen, et al vs Gregory Damm, et al

Filing 394

ORDER THAT 392 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney is DENIED. Counsel for Lee and Belcher may renew the Motion after the Court's July 24, 2013 hearing. The Court also GRANTS Counsel leave to file an untimely Response in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment within three days of the issuance of this Order. Signed by Judge David A. Ezra on 7/1/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

CHARLES ALLEN, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )

CV. NO. 03-01358-DAE-GWF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD
On June 18, 2013, Counsel for Plaintiffs Lori Kahre and Lee Belcher
(“Counsel”) filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record (“Motion”). (Doc.
# 392.) The Motion states that Kahre and Belcher’s attorney was unaware that
Defendants had filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on November 6, 2012 (doc.
# 350) until counsel for Plaintiff Robert Kahre contacted him on an undisclosed
date (see doc. # 392 at 2). The Motion further states that, when Counsel became
aware of the pending Motion for Summary Judgment, he entered into settlement
negotiations with counsel for Defendants, but was unable to effectuate a
settlement. (Id.) Counsel now seeks to withdraw on the grounds that “there exists
1

a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship between Counsel and Plaintiffs
based upon differences in the handing of this matter,” and “there exists a
breakdown in Plaintiffs’ financial commitments to Counsel.” (Id.) The Motion
asks the Court to allow Counsel to withdraw and to grant Plaintiffs additional time
in which to retain new counsel and file a response to the pending Motion for
Summary Judgment. (Id. at 3.)
In Response, Defendants indicate that they do not oppose the Motion
to Withdraw insofar as it seeks leave to withdraw, but oppose Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s
request for additional time. (Doc. # 393.) Defendants point out that Belcher and
Kahre’s attorney is registered to receive documents filed with the Court through
the Court’s electronic filing system, and therefore should have received the Motion
for Summary Judgment electronically when it was filed. (Id. at 2.) Defendants
also observe that Counsel would have been notified when the Court set a hearing
on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on February 20, 2013. (Id.)
Local Rule IA 10-6(b) provides that “[n]o attorney may withdraw
after appearing in a case except by leave of Court after notice has been served on
the affected client and opposing counsel.” Local Rule IA 10-6(e) also states:
“Except for good cause shown, no withdrawal or substitution shall be approved if
delay of discovery, the trial or any hearing in the case would result.” As
2

Defendants noted, the Court set Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment for a
hearing on February 20, 2013—nearly four months before the instant Motion to
Withdraw was filed. The hearing is scheduled for July 24, 2013. If the Court were
to allow Counsel to withdraw and grant Kahre and Belcher additional time to
respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment at this late date, the Court
would have to reschedule the hearing. Counsel has not shown good cause for the
instant Motion’s untimeliness. Counsel claims to have been unaware of
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment until recently. This is implausible for
the reasons asserted by Defendants, but even if it is true, it does not render
Counsel’s delay in filing the instant Motion to Withdraw excusable; it simply
reflects a lack of diligence. The Court therefore DENIES Counsel’s Motion to
Withdraw. Counsel for Lee and Belcher may renew the Motion after the Court’s
July 24, 2013 hearing. The Court also GRANTS Counsel leave to file an untimely
Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment within
three days of the issuance of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Las Vegas, Nevada, July 1, 2013.

_____________________________
David Alan Ezra
Senior United States District Judge
3