Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01150/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01150-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

 Local Rule 83.3(b) provides, in part, as follows:

(b) Withdrawal and Substitution. No attorney shall be permitted to withdraw

or be substituted as attorney of record in any pending action except by formal

written order of the Court, supported by written application setting forth the

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Elaine Munoz Sanchez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Deputy Robert Kent, individually and in

his official capacity as a deputy sheriff for

Maricopa County, Arizona; Deputy Brian

Woolf, individually and in his official

capacity as a deputy sheriff for Maricopa

County, Arizona; Maricopa County, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1150-PHX-LOA

ORDER

The substitution-of-counsel odyssey with the Maricopa County Office of

General Litigation Services continues. 

On November 5, 2010, the Maricopa County Office of General Litigation

Services and attorney Karen J. Hartman-Tellez filed a Notice of Filing Consent to

Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel, requesting substitution of counsel for Defendant

Deputy Brian Woolf, a Maricopa County Deputy Sheriff, and reportedly complying with

LRCiv 83.3(b)(1).1 (Doc. 91) The Court construes Ms. Hartman-Tellez’ Notice as a motion

Case 2:09-cv-01150-LOA Document 94 Filed 11/15/10 Page 1 of 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

27

28

reasons therefor together with the name, last known residence and last known

telephone number of the client, as follows:

(1) Where such application bears the written approval of the client, it shall be

accompanied by a proposed written order and may be presented to the Court

ex parte. The withdrawing attorney shall give prompt notice of the entry of

such order, together with the name, last known residence and last known

telephone number of the client, to all other parties or their attorneys.

(2) Where such application does not bear the written approval of the client, it

shall be made by motion and shall be served upon the client and all other

parties or their attorneys. The motion shall be accompanied by a certificate of

the attorney making the motion that (A) the client has been notified in writing

of the status of the case including the dates and times of any court hearings or

trial settings, pending compliance with any existing court orders and the

possibility of sanctions, or (B) the client cannot be located or for whatever

other reason cannot be notified of the pendency of the motion and the status

of the case.

- 2 -

for substitution of counsel.

Deputy Woolf is one of two deputy sheriffs remaining as the only defendants

in this action; the other is Deputy Robert Kent. Present counsel of record for Deputies Woolf

and Kent are attorneys Maria Brandon and S. Lee White, who are employed by the Maricopa

County Office of Special Litigation Services, a different governmental law office. Maria

Brandon filed and then withdrew an Opposition to Notice of Filing Consent to Withdrawal

and Substitution of Counsel. (Docs. 92-93) 

Ms. Hartman-Tellez’ motion includes an attachment which is Deputy Woolf’s

written approval, required by LRCiv 83.3(b)(1), authorizing the substitution of Randall

Garczynski and Brad Keogh as his new counsel. Deputy Woolf’s written approval, however,

does not authorize Ms. Hartman-Tellez to be one of his new attorneys. (Doc. 91, Exhibit A).

The motion complies with LRCiv 83.3(b)(1) because it contains the written approval of,

Deputy Woolf, as to Randall R. Garczynski and Brad Keogh only. See, Bohnert v. Mitchell,

2010 WL 3463711 (D.Ariz. 2010). The motion does not, however, comply with either (1)

LRCiv 83.3(b)(1) because Deputy Woolf’s consent form does not approve Ms. HartmanCase 2:09-cv-01150-LOA Document 94 Filed 11/15/10 Page 2 of 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

27

28

- 3 -

Tellez to be one of his new attorneys, or (2) LRCiv 83.3(b)(2) because the motion is not

“accompanied by a certificate of the attorney making the motion” that she has performed the

other requirements of LRCiv 83.3(b)(2). If Ms. Hartman-Tellez still desires to represent

Deputy Woolf in this action, she may now proceed pursuant to LRCiv 83.3(b)(4) but because

this case has been set for trial “[c]ounsel substituted or associated pursuant to this paragraph

must also comply with (b)(3) above.” LRCiv 83.3(b)(4). As a result of this order, Deputy

Woolf is represented by the Maricopa County Office of General Litigation Services and

Deputy Kent is represented by the Maricopa County Office of Special Litigation Services.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Karen J. Hartman-Tellez’ motion for substitution of

counsel, doc. 91, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Attorneys Randall R.

Garczynski and Brad Keogh with the Maricopa County Office of General Litigation Services

 are hereby substituted for attorneys Maria R. Brandon and S. Lee White with the Maricopa

County Office of Special Litigation Services as counsel of record for Defendant Deputy

Brian Woolf. Attorneys Maria R. Brandon and S. Lee White with the Maricopa County

Office of Special Litigation Services remain as counsel of record for Deputy Robert Kent.

At this time, Attorneys Randall R. Garczynski and Karen J. Hartman-Tellez represent

Maricopa County, doc. 91, but Ms. Hartman-Tellez does not represent Defendant Deputy

Brian Woolf.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to correct the

docket consistent with this order.

DATED this 15th day of November, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01150-LOA Document 94 Filed 11/15/10 Page 3 of 3