Doe v. Nelson et al
Filing
44
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER denying 43 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney ; denying 43 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 05/16/2011. (asp)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff,
ORDER and
MEMORANDUM DECISION
vs.
ROGER NELSON, et al.
Case No. 2:08-cv-220 CW
Defendants,
Now before the court is a motion to withdraw by Plaintiff’s counsel and to stay Plaintiff’s
response to a pending motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 43). The trial is presently set for September 6,
2010. Under DUCivR 83-1.4(a)(2):
No attorney of record will be permitted to withdraw after an action has been
set for trial unless (i) the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel includes a
certification signed by a substituting attorney indicating that such attorney
has been advised of the trial date and will be prepared to proceed with trial;
(ii) the application includes a certification signed by the moving attorney’s
client indicating that the party is prepared for trial as scheduled and is
eligible pursuant to DUCivR 83-1.3 to appear pro se at trial; or (iii) good
cause for withdrawal is shown, including without limitation, with respect to
any scheduling order then in effect.
Plaintiff’s counsel has not met this rule for three reasons. First, there is no indication that
a substitute attorney will take of this case for Plaintiff and be prepared for trial. Second,
-1-
Plaintiff’s counsel has not certified that her client is prepared to appear at trial pro se or that she
is eligible to proceed pro se. Finally, Plaintiff’s counsel has not otherwise shown good cause
why she should be allowed to withdraw. While Plaintiff’s counsel implies that there may be
good cause, counsel has asserted that confidentiality and privilege bar her from further explaining
the cause. While the court is sensitive to confidentiality and privilege, the court cannot simply
accept counsel’s blanket statement that there is cause. If counsel intends to assert good cause to
withdraw, she must find an appropriate way to convey it to the court in sufficient detail for the
court to find that she cannot ethically proceed as counsel for Plaintiff.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw is DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiff’s counsel should be mindful that the court is unlikely to allow her to withdraw unless
good cause exists or substitute counsel can be located who is ready to proceed to trial as
scheduled. This case is over three years old and further delay will likely prejudice all parties.
Turning to the second part of the motion, the pending motion to dismiss will not be
stayed. First, Plaintiff’s counsel represents Plaintiff until further notice. Second, the motion to
dismiss is relatively straight forward and resolving it may signficantly simplify this action as it
moves toward the upcoming trial.
SO ORDERED this 16th day of May, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
_______________________________________
Clark Waddoups
United States District Judge
-2-
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?