Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00070/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00070-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Impact Financial Services LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Six400 Check Solutions LLC et al, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-0070-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defense counsels' Motion to Withdraw Without Consent (doc.

89), and plaintiff's Response. Also before the court is Defendants' Motion to Extend All

Case Deadlines for 90 Days (doc. 90).

Defense counsel state that the insurance carrier that retained them to represent the

insureds has now declined coverage, and because of that they would like to withdraw. They

do not have the consent of the clients. In addition, they want an amendment to the Rule 16

Order to give the clients time to acquire new counsel.

When a carrier retains counsel to represent an insured, the lawyer's duty is to the

insured, not the insurer. The discovery deadline in this case has already passed. The

dispositive motion deadline is next week. A lawyer can't leave a case in the face of those

firm deadlines. LRCiv 83.3(b)(3) expressly states that once a case is set for trial, a lawyer

is not permitted to withdraw unless another lawyer certifies that he will be ready for trial, or

the client certifies that he has made suitable arrangements to be prepared for trial. No such

Case 2:10-cv-00070-FJM Document 93 Filed 04/04/11 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

- 2 -

certifications are made in the motion to withdraw.

Decisions made by insurance carriers do not control the pace of federal litigation. Nor

do they control the duty of a lawyer to his client. It would be an act of bad faith for an

insurer to abandon an insured represented under a reservation of rights at this stage of the

litigation. The insurer has an obligation to pay the lawyer, and the lawyer has an obligation

to represent the insured. See ER 1.16(c), as adopted by LRCiv 83.2(e). The presence or

absence of coverage is an issue between the insured and the insurer–not this court or counsel.

 Because no good cause has been shown to amend the Rule 16 Order, it is ORDERED

DENYING the Motion to Extend all Case Deadlines. (Doc. 90). And, because there has

been no compliance with LRCiv 83.3(b)(3), it is ORDERED DENYING the Motion to

Withdraw. (Doc. 89). 

DATED this 1st day of April, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00070-FJM Document 93 Filed 04/04/11 Page 2 of 2