SRC Labs, LLC et al v. Microsoft Corporation

Filing 163

ORDER: The court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion (Dkt. # 162 ) to allow Ms. Swope to withdraw as attorney of record without prejudice to Plaintiffs filing a notice of withdrawal that complies with the requirements of Local Rule 83.2(b) (3). Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

SRC LABS, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11
v.

CASE NO. C18-0321JLR
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW

12
13

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.

14
15

Before the court is Plaintiffs SRC Labs, LLC and Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe’s

16

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion for an order permitting attorney Karin B. Swope to

17

withdraw her appearance as their counsel of record. (Mot. (Dkt. # 162).) Plaintiffs

18

represent that Ms. Swope left Keller Rohrback LLP effective January 29, 2021, and that

19

Ryan McDevitt of Keller Rohrback LLP and Michael W. Shore, Alfonso G. Chan,

20

Christopher Evans, Ari B. Rafilson, and Paul T. Becker of Shore Chan Depumpo LLP

21

will continue to represent them after Ms. Swope’s withdrawal. (Id. at 1.) No party has

22

ORDER - 1

1

opposed Plaintiffs’ motion for leave for Ms. Swope to withdraw as counsel. (See

2

generally Dkt.)

3

Attorney withdrawal is governed by Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 83.2(b).

4

Where, as here, a party is represented by multiple attorneys from the same or different

5

firms and an attorney wishes to withdraw but will not leave the client without

6

representation, leave of the court to withdraw is not required. Id. LCR 83.2(b)(3).

7

Instead, the withdrawing attorney “shall file a Notice of Withdrawal, which shall include

8

a statement that the client remains represented and identifies the remaining attorneys.”

9

Id. The notice “shall be signed by the withdrawing attorneys and the remaining

10

attorney(s) of record to confirm that fact.” Id. A motion to withdraw, if filed, must be

11

noted in accordance with Local Rule 7(d)(3) and must include “a certification that the

12

motion was served on the client and opposing counsel.” Id. LCR 83.2(b)(1).

13

Here, Plaintiffs have complied with neither LCR 83.2(b)(1) nor LCR 83.2(b)(3).

14

First, the motion to withdraw was not noted for the third Friday after filing and service of

15

the motion under Local Rule 7(d)(3) and does not include a certification that the motion

16

was served on the client as required by Local Rule 83.2(b)(1). Second, even if the court

17

were to construe Plaintiffs’ filing as a notice of withdrawal under Local Rule 83.2(b)(3),

18

the filing does not meet that rule’s requirement that the notice be signed by both the

19

withdrawing attorney and the remaining attorneys of record.

20

//

21

//

22

//

ORDER - 2

1

Therefore, the court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion (Dkt. # 162) to allow Ms. Swope

2

to withdraw as attorney of record without prejudice to Plaintiffs filing a notice of

3

withdrawal that complies with the requirements of Local Rule 83.2(b)(3).

4

Dated this 1st day of February, 2021.

5
6

A

7

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3