Sanders v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America
Filing
16
ORDER GRANTING 11 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. ; GRANTING 11 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Signed by Judge David A. Ezra. (rf)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
CARRIE SANDERS,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
SA-15-CV-310-DAE
ORDER (1) GRANTING JESSICA TAYLOR’S MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF; (2) GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND
Before the Court is a Motion by Jessica Taylor, counsel for
Plaintiff Carrie Sanders, requesting leave to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff,
and requesting an extension of time to respond to Defendant Unum Life
Insurance Company of America’s (“Defendant” or “Unum”) Motion to
Enforce Mediated Settlement Agreement (Dkt. # 10). (Dkt. # 11.) Pursuant
to Local Rule CV-7(h), the Court finds these matters suitable for disposition
without a hearing.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff retained Ms. Taylor to represent her to appeal Unum’s
termination of her long term disability benefits, disability plus rider benefits,
1
and life waiver of premium benefits. (Dkt. # 11 at 1.) On April 20, 2015,
after submitting an administrative appeal to Unum, Ms. Taylor filed a
complaint in the instant suit alleging a violation of 29 U.S.C.
§ 1132(a)(1)(B). (Dkt. # 1 ¶¶ 45–52.) On November 3, 2015, Plaintiff and
Defendant engaged in mediation, agreed upon settlement, and signed a
mediated settlement agreement memorializing the settlement. (Dkt. # 11 at
2.) However, Plaintiff raised new objections to the mediated settlement
agreement in the days after mediation, which Ms. Taylor attempted to
address through meetings in person and on the phone, by means of e-mail
conversations, and through further negotiation with defense counsel which
resulted in revisions to the final settlement agreement. (Dkt. # 11 at 3–4.)
Ms. Taylor notified Plaintiff that there would be little more she could do to
provide legal assistance, should Plaintiff continue to refuse to sign the
settlement agreement. Further, Ms. Taylor notified Plaintiff that she would
file the instant motion if Plaintiff continued to refuse to sign the final
settlement agreement. (Id. at 4.) Ms. Taylor submitted various documents
under seal corroborating these efforts. (Dkt. # 15.)
Ms. Taylor advised Plaintiff that she would not have grounds to
oppose Defendant’s motion, should Defendant move to enforce the
settlement agreement. (Dkt. # 11 at 4.) Ms. Taylor also advised Plaintiff
2
that she would seek to withdraw if Plaintiff continued to oppose the final
settlement agreement. (Id. At 7.) On January 18, 2015, Defendant filed a
Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. (Dkt. # 10.) Ms. Taylor provided
Plaintiff with a copy of the instant motion the same day. (Dkt. # 11 at 7.)
On January 19, 2015, Ms. Taylor filed the instant motion with this Court.
(Dkt. # 11.)
LEGAL STANDARD
“Attorneys are normally expected to work through the
completion of a case.” Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Intellipay, Inc., 828 F.Supp.
33, 33 (S.D. Tex. 1993). However, the district court has the discretion to
grant an attorney leave to “withdraw from representation” upon “a showing
of good cause and reasonable notice to the client.” Matter of Wynn, 889
F.2d 644, 646 (5th Cir. 1989). The attorney seeking to withdraw from
representation “bears the burden of proving the existence of good cause for
withdrawal.” Hernandez v. Aleman Constr., No. 3:10–CV–2229, 2014 WL
1794833, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 4, 2014). Good cause must be corroborated
by evidence in the record. See Fed Trade Comm’n 828 F. Supp. at 34; see
also Hernandez, 2014 WL 1794833, at *1 (“In the proper exercise of its
discretion, the district court must insure that it is aware of the reasons behind
3
the request for withdrawal” (quoting United States v. Cole, 988 F.2d 681,
683 (7th Cir. 1993)).
The Local Rules for the Western District of Texas specify an
additional requirement which must be met before an attorney may withdraw
from representation: where “the successor attorney is not known,” the
attorney seeking to withdraw must provide the court with her client’s name,
address, and telephone number, as well as the client’s signature “or a
detailed explanation why the client’s signature could not be obtained after
due diligence.” W.D. Tex. Civ. R. AT-3.
ANALYSIS
Based upon Ms. Taylor’s representations to the Court, both in
her publicly filed motion, and her sealed motion before the Court, it is
apparent that Ms. Taylor’s attempts to convince Plaintiff to sign the final
settlement agreement with Unum will continue to be futile. Further, it is
clear that Ms. Taylor faces an ethical dilemma if she continues to represent
Ms. Sanders in the instant case. Ms. Taylor has expressed to her client and
to the Court that she believes the final settlement agreement is in the client’s
best interests, and to file a motion before the Court stating otherwise would
violate her duty to zealously represent her client. Accordingly, Ms. Taylor
4
has demonstrated good cause as to why she should be permitted to withdraw
from representing Plaintiff.
Ms. Taylor informed Plaintiff of her intent to withdraw as
counsel and provided her with a copy of the instant motion; Plaintiff did not
sign the instant motion. Ms. Taylor has adequately explained Plaintiff’s
failure to sign, pursuant to the Local Rules.
Ms. Taylor is not aware that Plaintiff has obtained new
representation, and provided the Court with Plaintiff’s address and phone
number, pursuant to the Local Rules. Accordingly, this Court finds that Ms.
Taylor has sufficiently complied with the Local Rules.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Taylor’s Motion to Withdraw as
Attorney is GRANTED. Further, Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend the Deadline
to Respond to Defendant’s Motion to Enforce (Dkt. # 10) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s response is due fourteen days (14) from the date which this Order
is filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: San Antonio, Texas, February 5, 2016.
_____________________________________
5
David Alan Ezra
Senior United States Distict Judge
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?