Regan et al v. East Bench Management et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 17 Without Prejudice Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 11/08/2011. (tls)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
TRACY REGAN, DENNIS REGAN, and
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
EAST BENCH MANAGEMENT, INC., and
Case No. 1:11-CV-110 TS
This matter is before the Court on Attorneys Jeffery A. Callister and Joseph E. Hatch’s
(“the Attorneys”) Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. 1 In their Motion, the Attorneys seek to
withdraw as counsel for Defendants East Bench Management, Inc. and Thaine Fischer. As this
withdrawal would leave Defendants without representation, Attorneys’ Motion must comply
with DUCivR 83-1.4. The Motion does not comply with DUCivR 83-1.4(1)(A) in that it does
(iii) notice that if the motion is granted and no Notice of Substitution of Counsel
has been filed, the client must file a notice of appearance within twenty-one (21)
days after entry of the order, unless otherwise ordered by the court, (iv) notice that
pursuant to DUCivR 83-1.3, no corporation, association, partnership, limited
liability company or other artificial entity may appear pro se, but must be
represented by an attorney who is admitted to practice in this court, and (v)
Docket No. 17.
certification by the moving attorney that the motion was sent to the moving
attorney’s client and all parties. 2
The Proposed Order also does not comply with 83-1.4(1)(B) in that it does not state
that (i) unless a Notice of Substitution of Counsel has been filed, within twentyone (21) days after entry of the order, or within the time otherwise required by the
court, the unrepresented party shall file a notice of appearance, (ii) that no
corporation, association, partnership, limited liability company or other artificial
entity may appear pro se, but must be represented by an attorney who is admitted
to practice in this court, and (iii) that a party who fails to file such a Notice of
Substitution of Counsel or Notice of Appearance may be subject to sanction
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1), including but not limited to
dismissal or default judgment. 3
As the Motion and Proposed Order do not comply with the local rules, the Court will
deny Attorneys’ Motion without prejudice. Court provided forms for a Motion for Withdrawal
of Counsel and a Proposed Order Granting Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel are available at
the Court’s website at http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/formpage.html.
Based on the foregoing, it is therefore
ORDERED that the Attorneys Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (Docket No. 17) is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DATED November 8, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
United States District 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?