Royal v. Stripes, LLC
ORDER denying without prejudice 29 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney by Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Garza. (atc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
LATOYA SH-NAE ROYAL,
CV No. 17-97 GJF/CG
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as
Counsel, (Doc. 29), filed June 29, 2017. Ms. Nutt and Mr. Stringham are seeking to
withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff. The Court, having considered the Motion, the relevant
law, and otherwise being fully advised in the premises, finds that the Motion is not welltaken and should be DENIED without prejudice.
Pursuant to the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the District of New Mexico, an
attorney seeking to withdraw must “indicate consent of the client represented by the
withdrawing attorney,” and provide either a notice of appointment of substitute attorney
or a statement of the client’s intention to appear pro se along with her address and
telephone number. D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.8(a). The Motion filed by Plaintiff’s counsel does
not state whether Plaintiff has consented to the Motion to Withdraw, nor does it provide
all of the required information in accordance with the Local Rule. If Plaintiff’s attorneys
are unable to obtain Plaintiff’s consent to their Motion, they must file a contested motion
to withdraw in compliance with Local Rule 83.8(b).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as
Counsel, (Doc. 29), is DENIED without prejudice and Ms. Nutt and Mr. Stringham
shall proceed as Plaintiff’s counsel in this case at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
THE HONORABLE CARMEN E. GARZA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?