Wyles et al v. Cenlar FSB et al

Filing 31

ORDER GRANTING 28 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Signed by Judge David A. Ezra. (lg1)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MIDLAND DIVISION
MICHAEL G. WYLES
and JUDY E. WYLES,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CENLAR FSB,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

7-15-CV-0155-DAE

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
Before the Court is a Motion by John M. Henderson, Esq., counsel for
Plaintiffs Michael G. Wyles and Judy E. Wyles (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) (Dkt.
# 28.) The motion requests leave to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs, and
requests a 30-day extension of all scheduling order deadlines (Dkt. # 20). Pursuant
to Local Rule CV-7(h), the Court finds these matters suitable for disposition
without a hearing.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs retained Henderson to represent them in a claim against
Ocwen; prior to filing the instant suit, Henderson has represented Plaintiffs in this
matter for four years. (Dkt. # 28 ¶ 2.) With Plaintiffs’ consent, Henderson
recently negotiated a settlement with Ocwen in accordance with Plaintiffs’
1

objectives. (Id.) However, Plaintiffs ceased communicating with Henderson at the
conclusion of the negotiations, and have refused to take the agreed-upon steps
towards settlement or sign the settlement documents. (Id.) Henderson has
indicated to the Court that he is unable to prosecute the matter due to Plaintiffs’
refusal to communicate with him. (Id. ¶¶ 2–3.)
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 the
request for withdrawal” (quoting United States v. Cole, 988 F.2d 681, 683 (7th Cir.
1993)).

2

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 Henderson’s representations to the Court, it is apparent
that continued attempts to represent Plaintiffs would be futile. (Dkt. # 28 ¶¶ 1– 4.)
It appears that Plaintiffs have placed Henderson in a compromised professional and
ethical position both by choosing not to follow through with the negotiated
settlement agreement, and by refusing to communicate with him. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 7.)
Accordingly, Henderson has demonstrated good cause as to why he should be
permitted to withdraw from his representation of Plaintiffs.
Henderson has informed Plaintiffs of his intent to withdraw as counsel
and sought their signatures pursuant to Local Rule AT-3. (Dkt. # 28 ¶ 5.)
Henderson states that Plaintiffs have refused to sign the motion, and there is no
indication that he will be able to attain Plaintiffs’ signatures with any additional
amount of time or effort. (Id.) Accordingly, Henderson has adequately explained
Plaintiffs’ failure to sign, pursuant to the Local Rules. Henderson is not aware that
3

Plaintiffs have obtained new representation, and provided the Court with Plaintiffs’
address and phone number, pursuant to the Local Rules. (Id. ¶ 6.) Accordingly,
this Court finds that Henderson has sufficiently complied with the Local Rules.
Plaintiffs are granted a thirty-day (30) extension of all pending
deadlines, pursuant to this Court’s scheduling order (Dkt. # 20), to allow them to
retain new counsel, should they choose. The hearing currently scheduled for April
20, 2016, is hereby CANCELLED unless Plaintiffs file a notice to the Court by
9:00 AM on April 18, 2016, indicating that they have obtained new counsel to
represent them during the hearing.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Henderson’s Motion to Withdraw as
Counsel is GRANTED. (Dkt. # 28.) Further, Henderson’s Motion to Extend
scheduling order deadlines by thirty (30) days is GRANTED. (Dkt. # 28.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Midland, Texas, April 5, 2016.

_____________________________________
David Alan Ezra
Senior United States Distict Judge

4