Cornwall, Kenneth et al v. Solterman Roofing Company, Inc.

Filing 19

ORDER that defendant may have until 10/4/10 to respond to 17 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney filed by David Rohrer, Shana Lewis and Lathrop & Clark. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 9/23/10. (krj)

Download PDF
Cornwall, Kenneth et al v. Solterman Roofing Company, Inc. Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN K E N N E T H CORNWALL, LUCAS KATZE, S TEV E GRIFFIN and SHELDON SISCO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 10-cv-264-wmc SOLTERMAN ROOFING COMPANY, INC. Defendant. D avid E. Rohrer, Shana R. Lewis and Lathrop & Clark have filed a motion for leave to withdraw as counsel for defendant Solterman Roofing Company, Inc., in this matter, s up p o r te d by Attorney Rohrer's sworn affidavit. Dkt. #17. Because the motion appears w ell-founded, the court would ordinarily grant it. As a legally-recognized business entity, ho w ever, defendant cannot defend in court without being represented by a lawyer. United States v. Hagerman, 545 F.3d 579, 581-82 (7th Cir. 2008). The court will, therefore, reserve a ruling on the motion for leave to withdraw until defendant has been given an opportunity to advise the court whether it objects to the withdrawal of counsel and, if so, on what grounds. Alternatively, defendant should notify the court that it does not object and has either engaged new counsel or is in the process of doing so. If defendant does not respond to this opportunity to be heard by October 4, 2010, an order will be entered granting the motion to withdraw and directing defendant to indicate w hether it intends to retain new counsel or default. In keeping with this order, Mr. Rohrer is ordered to immediately (1) provide notice to his client of this order, (2) remind it of all ORDER impending deadlines in this case, including in particular those for dispositive motions, w itness and exhibit disclosures, final pre-trial conference and trial, and (3) urge his prompt retention of new counsel and the likely draconian consequences of its failing to do so in light of its legal status and those deadlines. Entered this 23rd day of September, 2010. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ W IL L IA M M. CONLEY D istrict 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?