Cargill, Incorporated v. WDS, Inc. et al

Filing 422

ORDER denying re 402 Miscellaneous Filing. THEREFORE, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Objections to 398 Order Granting 396 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant Brian Ewert by Tuggle Duggins P.A. (Doc. No. 402).. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 6/7/18. (clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:16-cv-00848-FDW-DSC
CARGILL, INC., and CARGILL MEAT )
SOLUTIONS, CORP.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WDS, INC., JENNIFER MAIER, and )
BRIAN EWERT,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on “Plaintiffs’ Objections to [398] Order Granting
[396] Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant Brian Ewert by Tuggle Duggins P.A.” (Doc.
No. 402). The May 1, 2018 Order granted Tuggle Duggins P.A.’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel
for Defendant Brian Ewert, for the reasons stated in the motion. (Doc. No. 398).
Local Rule 83.1(f) provides:
In support of a motion, counsel seeking to withdraw must electronically file written
consent of their client to their withdrawal, which shall become effective only upon
Court approval. Absent the client’s consent, withdrawal may be obtained by
electronically filing a motion to withdraw, showing good cause for the withdrawal.
The motion must include the client’s last known address.
Rule 1.16 of the North Carolina Rules of Profession Conduct lists reasons justifying withdraw but
does not limit these reasons. Rule 1.16(b)(9) acknowledges that “other good cause for withdrawal”
can exist. The Court has reviewed Tuggle Duggin’s Motion and Plaintiffs’ Objection. The Court
cannot conclude that the May 1, 2018 Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Tuggle

Duggins’ satisfied its obligation to show good cause for withdraw in the absence of its client’s
consent.1
THEREFORE, the Court DENIES “Plaintiffs’ Objections to [398] Order Granting [396]
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant Brian Ewert by Tuggle Duggins P.A.” (Doc. No.
402).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: June 7, 2018

The Court’s willingness to grant motions to withdraw to date, does not impact the court’s authority to require a
lawyer to continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation. N.C. R. Prof’l
Conduct 1.16(c).
1

2