Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01383/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01383-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Jennifer Marie Jones,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

Town of Quartzsite, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 12-1383-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw and motion for

extension of time.

The motion to withdraw, while seemingly well taken, fails to comply with Local Rule

Civil 83. Specifically, it contains neither client consent, nor proof of service on the client.

Next, it does not contain current contact information for the client which would allow the

Court to send notice to her pro se if counsel withdraws. Counsel will be given 7 days to

bring the motion into compliance or it will be denied.

Next, counsel for Plaintiff has sought an extension of time to respond to a motion for

judgment on the pleadings to give Plaintiff time to obtain new counsel or respond pro se.

Counsel has indicated that Defendants will not stipulate to an extension. While the Court

notes that the extension sought is quite long, given counsel’s many personal issues, it does

not seem unreasonable. 

Defense counsel’s refusal to stipulate to extend this deadline is surprising to the Court.

Previously in this case, defense counsel, Lisa S. Wahlin, moved firms. When Ms. Wahlin

Case 2:12-cv-01383-JAT Document 26 Filed 12/18/13 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 -

moved firms, she failed to enter the correct dispositive motion deadline for this case into her

new firm’s docketing system. As a result, she missed the dispositive motion deadline. By

Ms. Wahlin’s own statements, Plaintiff’s counsel then “graciously” agreed to extend the

deadline. Nonetheless, Ms. Wahlin will not stipulate to extend time to respond to this very

motion. 

Because the deadline to respond has expired, and because Ms. Wahlin will not

stipulate to extend it, Ms. Wahlin must see some urgency to this matter. Accordingly, Ms.

Wahlin will need to explain to the Court immediately why such a continuance is not

warranted.

Further, the Court notes that in Plaintiff’s counsel’s email attachment to his motion

to withdraw, counsel suggests the parties are taking Plaintiff’s deposition in January 2014.

Discovery closed in this case in August 2013. The Court is confused as to how this

deposition could possibly be proceeding in January and orders it vacated if it is in fact

scheduled.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s counsel shall supplement the motion to withdraw

within seven days, as indicated above, or it will be denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a hearing on the motion for extension of time

(Doc. 23) for tomorrow, December 19, 2013, at 1:05 p.m. Plaintiff’s counsel may appear

telephonically by calling into the Court at 602-322-7560 at the time set for the hearing. Ms.

Wahlin shall appear in person.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s pro se motion to stay (Doc. 25) is

denied.

DATED this 18th day of December, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-01383-JAT Document 26 Filed 12/18/13 Page 2 of 2