Superior Composite Structures, LLC v. Abersham Commercial Services, Ltd. et al

Filing 29

ORDER granting re 11 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Malcolm Parrish, Abersham Commercial Services, Ltd. Signed by Chief Judge Karen E. Schreier on 4/21/2011. (KC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SUPERIOR COMPOSITE
STRUCTURES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ABERSHAM COMMERCIAL
SERVICES, LTD and
MALCOLM PARRISH,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civ. 10-4066-KES

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW
COUNSEL WITHOUT
SUBSTITUTION

On December 1, 2010, defendants’ attorney, John D. Mayne, with the
firm of Bikakis, Mayne, Arneson, Hindman & Hisey, moved to withdraw as
counsel without substitution. On January 4, 2011, the court denied the
motion without prejudice because defendant Abersham Commercial
Services, Ltd., is a corporation and corporations may not proceed pro se in
court. Docket 12 at 12. Upon reconsideration, Mayne’s motion to withdraw
as counsel without substitution is proper at this time.
In the January 4, 2011, order, the court gave Abersham 30 days, or
until February 4, 2011, to substitute counsel because Abersham would
technically be in default on the day its attorney withdrew. Ackra Direct Mkty.
Corp v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 857 (8th Cir. 1996); Docket 12 at 2-3.
The court later modified the deadline to February 22, 2011, because Mayne

notified the court that he did not forward the January 4, 2011, order to
defendants until January 17, 2011. See Docket 13, 14.
On behalf of Abersham, Mayne moved for an extension of the default
deadline with plaintiff’s, Superior Composite Structures, LLC’s, consent on
February 16, 2011. The court granted the request and gave Abersham until
March 8, 2011, to substitute counsel. Docket 18. On March 4, 2011,
defendant Malcolm Parrish sent the court a letter requesting additional time
to secure substitute counsel. Docket 19. Superior Composite resisted
Parrish’s motion. The court granted Parrish’s motion, extended the deadline
to secure substitute counsel for Abersham until March 21, 2011, and
explicitly notified Parrish and Abersham that no further extensions would
be granted. Docket 22. On March 21, 2011, Parrish made a pro se
appearance. Docket 23. While it is unclear whether Parrish is appearing
only on his own behalf or also for Abersham, the court has already
explained to Parrish that only an attorney may represent a corporation.
Docket 12 at 2.
Courts may only grant an attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel
without substitution for good cause. D.S.D. L.R. 83.9C. Abersham had from
January 4, 2011, to the date of this order to substitute counsel for Mayne.
The court granted two deadline extensions and Abersham was still unable to
secure substitute counsel. Thus, good cause exists to grant Mayne’s motion.
Accordingly, it is
2

ORDERED that John Mayne’s motion to withdraw as counsel without
substitution is granted. Mayne will forward a copy of this order to
defendants.
Dated April 21, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
CHIEF JUDGE

3