WANG v. LEE

Filing 91

MEMORANDUM ORDER RE: JUNE 3, 2014, TEXT ORDER DENYING 88 Defense Counsel's Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 06/04/2014. (lcb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TIANYI WANG,
Plaintiff,

13cv1541
ELECTRONICALLY FILED

v.
ARAM LEE,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER RE: JUNE 3, 2014, TEXT ORDER DENYING DEFENSE
COUNSEL’S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL (DOC. NO. 88)
On June 2, 2014, without prior notice to the Court or any request for Court intervention,
Counsel for Defendant filed a Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, in which he moved this Court to
permit him to withdraw his appearance because of Defendant’s alleged failure to render payment
for his services. Doc. No. 88. The Court denied the Motion without prejudice to be refiled
when, and if, substitute counsel enters an appearance. 06/03/14 Text Order. In light of
Defendant’s appeal of this Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the
Court is obliged to write the following Memorandum Order.1
This litigation has been fraught with disputes over routine pre-trial proceedings
including: objection to the presence of Parties in the same room during depositions; discovery
matters; and sanctions. See Motions filed at Doc. Nos. 17, 18, 23, 26, 32, 46, 61, 78, 83, 85.
These Motions illustrate the acrimonious personal relationship which currently exists between
the Parties. These Motions consumed substantial Court time and have also presumably
substantially increased the costs of litigation for the Parties.
1

To date, the only new attorney notice of appearance appears to be related to the appeal of this Court’s Order. Doc.
No. 89.

Defense Counsel contends that Defendant has failed to fulfill her financial obligation and
has an outstanding balance of over $46,000.00 for fees rendered. This is a substantial sum,
especially considering that the only dispositive motion filed has been Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. Doc. No. 42.
Defense Counsel filed the instant Motion on the eve of deadlines for Pre-trial
submissions. As set forth in this Court’s Pretrial Order in December, 2013, the Pretrial filing
deadlines begin on June 20, 2014. Doc. No. 12. At the Parties’ request, this case has been set
for a non-jury trial, scheduled to begin on August 19, 2014.
Defense Counsel has failed to demonstrate that his appearance “serves no meaningful
appearance.” See Erie Molded Plastics, Inc. v. Nogah, LLC, 520 Fed.Appx. 82, 85 (3d Cir.
2013) cited by Defendant, Doc. No. 88, ¶ 13. In addition, even though both Parties have been
represented throughout, this litigation has been fraught with personal attacks and accusations of
falsehoods by both Parties. Counseled representation of both Parties is necessary so that the
focus will remain solely on the legal disputes before the Court, and so that same can be resolved.
This is in the best interests of the public as well as the Parties to this litigation.
Given the numerous issues raised by the Parties during the discovery phase of this case,
all of which highlight the deeply personal animus between these two parties, granting Defense
Counsel’s request would result a pro se Defendant, who lives in the State of Washington, and
would undoubtedly create further fractious litigation. Such litigation would be at the expense of
the timely resolution of this case, as well as at the expense of all other matters before this Court,
which the Court endeavors to resolve in a just, speedy, and inexpensive manner. Fed. R. Civ. P.
1.

While the Court regrets that Defense Counsel finds himself in the position of not being
compensated for a portion of his services rendered, substantial resources have been expended in
a relentless (and sometimes unseemly) motion practice, in which both sides have challenged each
other and impeded the resolution of their dispute. At this critical juncture in the case, with the
set trial date on the horizon, justice is best served by Defense Counsel’s continued representation
of Defendant until such time as substitute counsel enters an appearance.

SO ORDERED, this 4th day of June, 2014,
s/ Arthur J. Schwab
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge

cc:

All Registered ECF Counsel and Parties