NWI Consulting, LLC v. Ragab (TV1)

Filing 17

ORDER granting 11 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The Court will afford Mr. Ragab a brief extension of time. Because the twenty-one days requested in the Second Motion would have expired on or about September 10, 2013, the Court finds that it is appropriate to allow Mr. Ragab up to and including September 30, 2013, in which to respond to the Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award. Any reply by Petitioner NWI Consulting shall be filed on or before October 7, 2013. Denying 12 the Pro Se Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Granting 15 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Mr. Lawhorn SHALL PROVIDE a copy of any other pertinent documents in Mr. Lawhorns file to Mr. Ragab at 1805 Golf View Dri ve, Buffalo, MN 55313, and thereafter, Mr. Lawhorn and the law firm of Frantz, McConnell & Seymour, LLP, are RELIEVED of their duties as counsel in this matter. The Clerk of Court SHALL PROVIDE a copy of this Memorandum and Order and a copy of the Motion to Confirm Arbitration to Mr. Ragab at 1805 Golf View Drive, Buffalo, MN 55313. Additionally, the Clerk of Court SHALL enter this address as Mr. Ragads address in the record and indicate that he is proceeding pro se in this matter. Mr. Ragab i s ADVISED that, unless and until counsel appears on his behalf, he is proceeding pro se in this matter. He must supervise this litigation and act on his own behalf. Specifically, he must comply with the deadlines set by the Court. As a pro se litigant, the Court will afford Mr. Ragab a degree of latitude in this litigation.Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 09/17/2013. (KAW) (c/m to Mr. Ragab.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
NWI CONSULTING, LLC,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
ABDEL FATTAH RAGAB,
Respondent.

No. 3:13-MC-05
(VARLAN/GUYTON)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02. Now before the Court are three motions: Respondent’s Second
Motion for a Twenty-One (21) Day Extension of Time to Respond to Petition [Doc. 11]; a pro se
Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. 12]; and a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel by John M.
Lawhorn and Frantz, McConnell & Seymour, LLP, [Doc. 15]. The Petitioner has responded in
opposition to these motions. [See Docs. 13, 14, 16]. The Court will address these motions in the
order that they were filed.
First, the Court finds that the Respondent’s Second Motion for Twenty-One (21) Day
Extension of Time [Doc. 11] is well-taken.

On August 8, 2013, the Court granted the

Respondent’s first request for extension, and the Court afforded him up to and including August
20, 2013, to respond to the Petitioner’s Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award. In the Second
Motion, Respondent requests an additional twenty-one days to respond. The Court finds that the
Respondent has shown good cause for his request for additional time. Specifically, he has been

called abroad to address family issues relating to the civil turmoil in Egypt. The Second Motion
represents that Mr. Ragab would return to the United States on or about September 3 or 4, 2013.
Accordingly, the Second Motion for a Twenty-One (21) Day Extension of Time to
Respond to Petition [Doc. 11] is GRANTED. The Court will afford Mr. Ragab a brief extension
of time. Because the twenty-one days requested in the Second Motion would have expired on or
about September 10, 2013, the Court finds that it is appropriate to allow Mr. Ragab up to and
including September 30, 2013, in which to respond to the Motion to Confirm Arbitration
Award. Any reply by Petitioner NWI Consulting shall be filed on or before October 7, 2013.
Turning next to the pro se Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. 12], the Court finds that
this motion is not well-taken. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.4, “Whenever a party has appeared by
attorney, that party may not thereafter appear or act in his or her own behalf in the action or
proceeding, unless an order of substitution shall first have been made by the Court . . . .” E.D.
Tenn. L.R. 83.4(c). In this case, Mr. Ragab, the Respondent, has filed a pro se motion prior to
the Court substituting counsel or granting a request by Mr. Ragab to proceed pro se. In addition,
the Court finds that Mr. Ragab’s request for an additional ninety days to respond is unreasonable
and is not supported by good cause. The Court finds that the extension of approximately thirty
days afforded above is appropriate under the circumstances. Accordingly, the pro se Motion for
Extension of Time [Doc. 12] is DENIED.
Finally, the Court finds that the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel [Doc. 15], as filed, does
not comply with Local Rule 83.4, because the motion does not certify that a copy of the motion
was provided to the client fourteen days prior to the motion being filed. The Court finds,
however, that Mr. Lawhorn served a copy of the motion on Mr. Ragab via U.S. Mail on August
22, 2013. More than fourteen days have elapsed since Mr. Ragab was provided a copy of the

2

Motion to Withdraw, and Mr. Ragab has not objected to withdrawal of counsel. Moreover, the
Court finds that Mr. Ragab’s own pro se filing indicates that his relationship with counsel is
irretrievably broken. [See Doc. 12 at 1].
Based upon the foregoing, the Motion to Withdraw [Doc. 15] is GRANTED. The Clerk
of Court SHALL PROVIDE a copy of this Memorandum and Order and a copy of the Motion
to Confirm Arbitration to Mr. Ragab at 1805 Golf View Drive, Buffalo, MN 55313.
Additionally, the Clerk of Court SHALL enter this address as Mr. Ragad’s address in the record
and indicate that he is proceeding pro se in this matter. Mr. Lawhorn SHALL PROVIDE a
copy of any other pertinent documents in Mr. Lawhorn’s file to Mr. Ragab at 1805 Golf View
Drive, Buffalo, MN 55313, and thereafter, Mr. Lawhorn and the law firm of Frantz, McConnell
& Seymour, LLP, are RELIEVED of their duties as counsel in this matter.
Finally, Mr. Ragab is ADVISED that, unless and until counsel appears on his behalf, he
is proceeding pro se in this matter. He must supervise this litigation and act on his own behalf.
Specifically, he must comply with the deadlines set by the Court. As a pro se litigant, the Court
will afford Mr. Ragab a degree of latitude in this litigation. See Boswell v. Mayer, 169 F.3d 384,
387 (6th Cir. 1999). Nonetheless, a “pro se litigant may not flagrantly ignore relevant procedural
or substantive rules of law.” Baldwin v. United Nations Sec. Council, 2012 WL 529554 (S.D.
Ohio Feb. 17, 2012).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTER:
/s H. Bruce Guyton
United States Magistrate Judge

3