Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America v. Padron et al

Filing 358

ORDER GRANTING 354 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Mr. Wibrachts oral motion for electronic access to the Courts filing system is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney. (aej)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND
SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL PADRON, MARIA PADRON,
JOE ALEX MUNIZ, MICHAEL
WIBRACHT, LAURA WIBRACHT,
RUEBEN VILLARREAL, MANUELA
VILLARREAL, JAMES BRIAN
TAYLOR, FRAMEEDA TAYLOR,
STEVEN WIBRACHT, ERIN
WIBRACHT, RAYMOND JENKINS,
WENDY JENKINS, MAPCO, INC.,
BLACKHAWK VENTURES, LLC,
PROMASTERS CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
JAMCO VENTURES, LLC,
HOMELAND CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
MBH VENTURES, LLC, MILCON
CONSTRUCTION, LLC, TEAM JAMA,
CORE LOGISTICS SERVICES, LLC,
WPS GROUP, LLC, PADRON
ENTERPRISES, INC., BLACKHAWKJAMCO A SDVO, LLC,
BLACKHAWK/JAMCO JV2,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

SA-15-CV-00200-DAE

ORDER
Before the Court in the above-styled cause of action is the Opposed Motion to Withdraw
as Counsel of Record for Defendant Michael Wibracht [#254], which was referred to the
undersigned for disposition on July 25, 2019. By their motion, Kevin M. Young, Jason Pulliam,
and the Law Firm of Prichard Young, LLP, ask the Court for permission to withdraw as
attorneys for Michael Wibracht due to an irreconcilable conflict.

1

The Court held a hearing on the motion on August 6, 2019, at which counsel for Plaintiff,
Defendant Michael Wibracht, and Mr. Young were present. Mr. Young explained to the Court at
the hearing that the nature of the conflict is a dispute over the payment of fees by Mr. Wibracht.
Mr. Wibracht indicated that there is also a conflict over the litigation strategy and that he is
willing to represent himself pro se. Plaintiff indicated it is not opposed to the withdrawal.
“An attorney may withdraw from representation only upon leave of the court and a
showing of good cause and reasonable notice to the client.” In the Matter of Wynn, 889 F.2d
644, 646 (5th Cir. 1989). The withdrawing attorney bears the burden of specifying and proving
the existence of good cause for withdrawal. See United States v. Austin, 812 F.3d 453, 456 (5th
Cir. 2016) (citing United States v. Wild, 92 F.3d 304, 307 (5th Cir. 1996); Wynn, 889 F.3d at
646)). A court’s determination whether an attorney has good cause to withdraw depends on the
facts and circumstances of the particular case. See Wild, 92 F.3d at 307. “The withdrawal of an
attorney in a given case is a matter entrusted to the sound discretion of the court.” United States
v. Conlan, 786 F.3d 380, 390 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court will grant the motion because there is good cause for the withdrawal. Mr.
Pulliam, one of Mr. Wibracht’s attorneys, has been appointed to the federal judiciary as a United
States District Judge in the San Antonio Division of the Western District of Texas. Mr. Pulliam
is therefore required to withdraw his representation. As to Mr. Young and the law firm of
Pritchard Young, LLP, the Court will also permit the withdrawal, in light of the conflict not just
over the payment of fees but also due to the disagreement between Mr. Wibracht and Mr. Young
as to the direction of the litigation. This case is not set for trial until February 2020, giving Mr.
Wibracht ample time to retain a new attorney if he so desires. The Court finds that no party will
be prejudiced by the withdrawal.

2

At the close of the Court’s hearing, the Court advised Mr. Wibracht regarding his
obligations as a party representing himself pro se, and Mr. Wibracht reiterated his willingness to
do so. Mr. Wibracht also made an oral motion for electronic access to filing court documents in
this case. The Court will grant the oral motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Opposed Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of
Record for Defendant Michael Wibracht [#254] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kevin M. Young, Jason Pulliam, and the Law Firm
of Prichard Young, LLP’s representation of Defendant Michael Wibracht in this proceeding is
hereby TERMINATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Mr. Wibracht obtains a new attorney, his new
counsel may enter an appearance at any time in this litigation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Wibracht’s oral motion for electronic access to
the Court’s filing system is GRANTED. Mr. Wibracht is directed to contact the Office of the
District Clerk to obtain the e-filing and e-noticing registration form and to submit the fully
completed form to the Clerk. Under standard procedures, the registration form will be processed
by the Clerk, who has the responsibility of verifying, approving, and effectuating e-filing and enoticing of court documents.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Mr. Wibracht consult the following resources to assist
him in representing himself pro se in this case:
•

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, available at: www.uscourts.gov/file/rulescivil-procedure

•

This Court’s Local Rules, available at https://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/courtinformation/lcr-civil-rules/

•

The “Complete Pro Se Manual” which is available on the Court’s website at:
https://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/filing-without-an-attorney/.
3

Although pro se litigants are held to a less stringent standard, they are nevertheless
required to follow the rules that govern all litigants in federal court. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d
524, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). These rules include but are not limited to the rules and Court orders
regarding conference with opposing counsel, following deadlines imposed by the rules and the
Court’s Scheduling Order, observing the response times for nondispositive and dispositive
motions as set forth in Local Rule CV-7(e), and keeping the Court updated with a current address
to ensure all filings are received.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 12th day of August, 2019.

ELIZABETH S. ("BETSY") CHESTNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4