Fujifilm Sonosite, Inc. v. The Imaging Specialists Group, LLC et al

Filing 42

ORDER granting in part and denying in part dfts' 36 Motion to Withdraw Stephen Teller as Attorney by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5

6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7
8

FUJIFILM SONOSITE, INC.,

9
10
11
12

Plaintiff,

NO. C13-983 RSM

v.
THE IMAGING SPECIALISTS GROUP, LLC
and JAMES WINZEY,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
MOTION TO WITHDRAW

Defendants.

13
14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Motion to Withdraw from Representation by
counsel for Defendants, Stephen A. Teller. Dkt. # 36. As counsel, by his own admission,
initially failed to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 83.2(b), the Court ordered

16
counsel to provide a declaration regarding grounds for withdrawal for in camera review. See
17
18

Dkt. # 41. Having considered the parties’ briefs and the multiple declarations by counsel for
Defendants, the Court now grants counsel’s Motion to Withdraw in part.

19

Analysis

20

Pursuant to Local Rule 83.2, no attorney shall withdraw except by leave of court. LCR

21

83.2(b)(1). Withdrawal will ordinarily be permitted until sixty days before the discovery

22

cutoff in a civil case. Id. If withdrawal leaves a party unrepresented, the motion must include

23

the party’s address and telephone number. Id. Furthermore, where the attorney for a business

24

entity is seeking to withdraw, the attorney must certify to the court that he has advised the

25

business entity that it is required by law to be represented by counsel and that failure to obtain

26

ORDER ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW ‐ 1 

1

a replacement attorney may result in entry of default. LCR 83.2(b)(3). The decision to grant

2

or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is ultimately committed to the discretion of the trial

3

court. See Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, Inc., 694 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1982);

4

Huckabee v. Medical Staff at CSATF, et al., 2013 WL 3892950, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2013).

5
6
7
8

In light of the reasons provided to the Court upon in camera review, the Court finds
that good cause exists to allow Mr. Teller to withdraw from representation of Defendants in
this action despite his filing of his motion within 60 days of the March 17, 2014 discovery
cut-off date. Mr. Teller has substantiated that he has been discharged from service and is no
longer able to serve as counsel, pursuant to RPC 1.16. Though Mr. Teller has not complied

9
with the requirement to provide the address and telephone numbers of the parties he
10
11
12

represents, the Court directs the parties to the certified information provided by former lead
counsel for Defendants. Dkt. # 30, p. 3. The Court finds that Mr. Teller has complied with the
requirement to notify the business entity he represents that it must obtain substitute counsel by

13

the date his withdrawal becomes effective. As to Mr. Teller’s suggestion that individual

14

Defendant James Winzey could represent the corporate Defendant “[i]n the meantime” (see

15

Dkt. #36 at p. 3), the Court cautions that a business entity must be represented by a licensed

16

attorney. In re American West Airline, 40 F.3cd 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994)(holding that a

17

partner may not represent his or her own interest in a partnership pro se). Any prejudice to

18

Plaintiff is accordingly offset by the potential entry of default against Defendant, The Imaging

19

Specialists Group, LLC, should it fail to timely procure substitute counsel.

20

Mr. Teller also included in his Motion to Withdraw a request to continue the discovery

21

deadline as well as the response deadline and noting date for Plaintiff’s pending motion for

22
23
24
25

partial summary judgment (Dkt. # 21). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) provides that
a schedule shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause and by leave of the
district judge. To establish “good cause,” parties seeking modification must generally show
that they cannot meet the established deadlines despite the exercise of due diligence. Johnson
v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Mere failure to complete

26

ORDER ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW ‐ 2 

1

discovery by the Court-ordered deadline does not constitute good cause for continuance. LCR

2

16(b)(4).

3

The Court is not persuaded that good cause exists for a continuance. Mr. Teller relies

4

on his withdrawal as the sole grounds for extending deadlines. This fact alone does not

5

demonstrate that Defendants exercised the required due diligence and were nonetheless

6
7
8

unable to comply with deadlines. Indeed, the Court has already twice re-noted Plaintiff’s
motion for partial summary judgment and stayed all case deadlines in order to allow
Defendants to secure new counsel after the withdrawal of their former lead counsel, Mr.
Montalvo. See Dkt. ## 23, 33. Defendants’ inability or refusal to secure new counsel during

9
the previous stay further undermines a showing of good cause for renewing it. Accordingly,
10

counsel’s request for a continuance is denied without prejudice.

11

Conclusion

12

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court hereby ORDERS that the Motion to

13

Withdraw as Attorney for Defendants (Dkt. # 36) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

14

The Court GRANTS leave for Mr. Teller to withdraw as counsel for Defendants. The Court

15

DENIES without prejudice Mr. Teller’s request to continue case deadlines.

16
Dated this 10th day of April 2014.

17
18

A

19

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22

23
24
25
26

ORDER ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW ‐ 3 

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW ‐ 4