Heggins v. US Foods, Inc.
ORDER granting 17 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Chan Mo Ahn and David Bradley Jordan terminated. If Plaintiff does not wish to continue with this lawsuit, he may request that the court dismiss the case in its entirety. To this end, Plaintiff shall, by January 24, 2017, complete the attached notice and mail it to the Clerk of Court at the address indicated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 12/27/2016. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Dregory C. Heggins,
US Foods, Inc.,
C/A No.: 0:16-2786-SVH
This matter comes before the court on the motion of D. Bradley Jordan, Esq., and
Chan M. Ahn, Esq., both of the Jordan Law Firm, P.C., (“Plaintiff’s counsel”), to be
relieved as counsel for Dregory C. Heggins (“Plaintiff”). [ECF No. 17]. The motion
indicates that Plaintiff’s counsel have tried unsuccessfully on many occasions to contact
Plaintiff via email, U.S. mail, and telephone to participate in responding to discovery
requests and to advise of upcoming deadlines. [ECF No. 17-2]. Despite being informed
by Plaintiff’s counsel via email dated November 23, 2016, that if Plaintiff did not contact
their office, Plaintiff’s counsel would be forced to file a motion to be relieved as his
counsel, Plaintiff failed to contact them. Id. at 13.
Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that they provided a copy of the motion to withdraw
as counsel, filed on December 7, 2016, to Plaintiff. Id. at 2. In accordance with Local
Civ. Rule 83.I.07(B), Plaintiff’s counsel also informed Plaintiff that he may file an
objection to the motion within 17 days. Id. That time period has now passed, and Plaintiff
did not file an objection to the motion. Therefore, the court grants Plaintiff counsel’s
motion to withdraw.
The court directs Plaintiff to notify the court by January 24, 2017, of the identity
of the new attorney(s) he has retained to represent him in this case or, alternatively, of his
desire to proceed with this litigation pro se, i.e., without an attorney. If Plaintiff does not
wish to continue this lawsuit, he may request that the court dismiss the case in its entirety.
To this end, Plaintiff shall, by January 24, 2017, complete the attached notice and mail it
to the Clerk of Court at the address indicated. If Plaintiff fails to file the attached letter
with the Clerk within the time prescribed, the court will consider him as proceeding pro
Plaintiff is specifically advised that, if no new attorney is obtained to represent his
interests, the court will expect this litigation to be conducted in accordance with all
provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that the court is unable to provide
him with legal advice.
Failure to comply with court rules could have serious
consequences including, but not limited to, striking his claims and dismissing the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 27, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
Clerk of Court
United States District Court
901 Richland Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
In Re: 0:16-cv-2786-SVH Heggins v. U.S. Foods, Inc.
Dear Ms. Blume:
In response to the order of Judge Hodges dated December 27, 2016, I wish to
advise as follows:
I, ________________ (Printed Name), have obtained a new attorney
to personally represent me in this matter. His [or her] name, address,
and telephone number are as follows:
I, ________________ (Printed Name), have NOT obtained a new
attorney and will represent myself in this matter. I request that the
Clerk of Court direct all notices and pleadings to me at the above
address. I understand that I am obligated to comply with all
provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to keep the
Clerk of Court informed as to my proper address.
I, ________________ (Printed Name), do not wish to continue this
lawsuit and request that the court dismiss the case in its entirety.
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?