Holley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 17

ORDER granting 16 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney John Patrick Swallow terminated.(Signed by Judge Hilda G Tagle) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
CHARLES D. HOLLEY,
Plaintiff,
VS.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

September 08, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL NO. 2:17-CV-00072

ORDER
BE IT REMEMBERED that on September 8, 2017, the Court GRANTED
Attorney John P. Swallow’s (“Swallow”) Unopposed Motion to Withdraw as
Plaintiff’s attorney of record. See Dkt. No. 16.
Swallow represents that he was hired by the Law Office of Vaughn L.
Westheimer (“Westheimer”) to assist Westheimer in the preparation and filing of a
Motion to Remand in the above-captioned case. See id. Westheimer was Plaintiff’s
lead attorney when the case was removed to federal court on February 20, 2017,
and Westheimer continues as Plaintiff’s lead attorney. See Dkt. No. 1, Exh. C at 2;
Dkt. No. 12 at 5. At the time the case was removed, Westheimer was not admitted
to practice before the Court, but Swallow was admitted. See Attorney Admission
Reports for Vaughn Loran Westheimer & John Patrick Swallow, U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, CM/ECF (https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov). Swallow
represents that, for this reason, Westheimer hired him to file a Motion to Remand
on Plaintiff’s behalf. See Dkt. No. 16. Since Westheimer has been admitted to
practice before this Court, see Attorney Admission Report, Swallow states that his
assistance is no longer required. See Dkt. No. 16. Westheimer and Defendants’
counsel are unopposed to the present Motion. See id.
“An attorney may withdraw from representation only upon leave of the court
and a showing of good cause and reasonable notice to the client.” Matter of Wynn,
889 F.2d 644, 646 (5th Cir. 1989). The withdrawing attorney bears the burden of
1/2

proving the existence of good cause for withdrawal. See Federal Trade Commission
v. Intellipay, 828 F. Supp. 33, 34 (S.D. Tex. 1993) (“The record must generally
reflect an appropriate basis for granting leave [to withdraw]; unsubstantiated
claims are insufficient.”). Whether leave is granted is a matter within the trial
court’s sound discretion. Wynn, 889 F.2d at 646.
Swallow has shown good cause for withdrawal. Namely, Westheimer no
longer requires his assistance and Westheimer will continue to represent Plaintiff.
Moreover, Swallow’s withdrawal will cause no delays in this case. See S.D. TEX. L.R.
83.2 (“[N]o delay will be countenanced because of a change in counsel . . . .”).
Although Swallow has not shown that he has provided reasonable notice of his
withdrawal to Plaintiff, Swallow provided notice to Plaintiff’s lead attorney, who is
unopposed to Swallow’s present Motion. See Dkt. No. 16.
Because Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by Swallow’s withdrawal, the Court
GRANTS Swallow’s Motion to Withdraw as Plaintiff’s attorney of record.

SIGNED this 8th day of September, 2017.
___________________________________
Hilda Tagle
Senior United States District Judge

2/2