Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096-42/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

In Re Zicam Cold Remedy Marketing,

Sales Practices, and Products Liability

Litigation. 

_________________________________

This document relates to:

Carla Henry v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.,

et al.

10-cv-2082-PHX-FJM.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. MDL 09-2096-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it a motion from lawyers Charles S. Zimmerman, Timothy J.

Becker, and Stacy K. Hauer to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff Carla Henry (doc. 1381).

Plaintiff has not responded, and no trial date has been set. 

Counsel explains that they “have a fundamental disagreement with respect to

Plaintiff’s claim and Plaintiff’s Counsel cannot assist Plaintiff in proceeding with her claim.”

Motion to Withdraw, 1. Counsel have “made several phone calls in an attempt to

communicate and resolve the fundamental disagreement with plaintiff” and sent her several

letters notifying her of the status of her case. Id., 1–2; see LRCiv 83.3(b)(2)(A). Counsel

then notified plaintiff that if an “agreement could not be reached,” they would move to

withdraw. No agreement was reached. 

A lawyer may withdraw from representation if “the client insists upon taking action

that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental

disagreement.” ER 1.16(b)(4). Counsel do not explain the nature of the “fundamental

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1397 Filed 03/28/11 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 -

disagreement” with plaintiff, and we therefore cannot determine whether good cause exists

for withdrawal. A reasonable inference is that the disagreement is related to the settlement

offer that plaintiff apparently declined. The choice of whether to settle a matter is solely the

client’s, and any related disagreement with counsel is not grounds for withdrawal. See ER

1.2(a) (“A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decision whether to settle a matter.”). 

We also note that counsel has not indicated whether they served their client with this

motion, as required by LRCiv 83.3(b)(2). 

Accordingly, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. We do so without prejudice as

to counsel’s right to renew their motion with further information and proof of service of the

motion on plaintiff. 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING the motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff Carla

Henry (doc. 1381). 

DATED this 25th day of March, 2011.

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1397 Filed 03/28/11 Page 2 of 2