Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02274/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02274-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jennifer Christopher
Plaintiff
RJM Acquisitions LLC
Defendant

Document Text:

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 Christopher, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RJM Acquisitions LLC, 

Defendant.

No. CV-13-02274-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP (“LBBS”)’s 

Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant RJM Acquisitions, LLC without 

Immediate Substitution. (Doc. 63). The Court now rules on the motion. 

I. Legal Standard 

 Pursuant to the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the District of Arizona, 

 (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 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. 

LRCiv 83.3(b)(1). When ruling on a motion to withdraw brought pursuant to LRCiv 83.3, 

the Court should consider the following factors: “(1) the reasons why withdrawal is 

Case 2:13-cv-02274-JAT Document 70 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm 

withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which 

withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Gagan v. Monroe, 2013 WL 1339935, 

at *4 (D. Ariz. April 1, 2013). 

 Also relevant is Ethical Rule 1.16 of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, 

which provides as follows: 

 (a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a 

client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the 

representation of a client if: 

 . . . 

 (3) the lawyer is discharged. 

 . . . . 

 (c) A lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or 

permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation. When ordered 

to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation 

notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation. 

Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 42, ER 1.16. 

II. Analysis 

LBBS contends that the Court should allow it to withdraw as Defendant’s counsel 

because: (1) Defendant affirmatively discharged LBBS and (2) continued representation 

would likely result in an unreasonable financial burden on LBBS. (Docs. 61, 63). In 

response, Plaintiff argues that the Court should exercise its “wide discretion” and deny 

LBBS’s request because: (1) the motion to withdraw did not include Defendant’s last 

known address and telephone number and thus failed to technically comply with 

LRCiv 83.3; (2) the majority of LBBS’s representation has already concluded; and 

(3) post-judgment discovery requests are still outstanding and Defendant, as a 

corporation, cannot represent itself. (Doc. 66). 

Despite being absent from the parties’ briefing, the Court concludes that it lacks 

authority to rule on LBBS’s request because once Judgment was entered in favor of 

Plaintiff on February 3, 2015, see (Doc. 46), this case closed. See, e.g., Booth v. Arpaio, 

Case 2:13-cv-02274-JAT Document 70 Filed 05/13/16 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

2007 WL 42449075, at * (D. Ariz. Nov. 29, 2007) (denying a motion as moot “[b]ecause 

this case is closed, with judgment having been entered”); Neuendorf v. John C. Lincoln 

Med., 2011 WL 941352, at *1 (D. Ariz. Mar. 18, 2011) (denying a motion as moot 

“[b]ecause Judgment was entered” and the party’s “appeal has been dismissed”); Garcia 

v. Glendale Police Dep’t, 2014 WL 2197027, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 27, 2014) (denying a 

motion as moot because the “case has been closed by the Clerk’s Judgment dismissing 

the case”). Because no “pending action”—as contemplated by LRCiv 83.3(b)—is before 

the Court, Defendant may discharge LBBS without the Court’s permission. 

Consequently, based on statements made to the Court, the parties should consider 

LBBS’s representation of Defendant in this matter to be terminated.1

III. Conclusion 

For the reasons set forth above, 

 IT IS ORDERED that LBBS’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant 

RJM Acquisitions, LLC without Immediate Substitution, (Doc. 63), is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall refer this matter by 

random draw to a United States Magistrate Judge to resolve Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Appearance and Examination of Judgment Debtor RJM Acquisitions, LLC, (Doc. 68), 

which remains pending. 

 Dated this 13th day of May, 2016. 

 

1

 Even if the Court had authority to rule on LBBS’s motion, the four factors set 

forth above weigh heavily in favor of permitting withdrawal. The most compelling reason 

is the fact that Defendant affirmatively terminated LBBS after this case closed. Not only 

was LBBS obligated under the Ethical Rules to withdraw as Defendant’s counsel, but a 

conflict of interest would surely arise if the Court required LBBS to continue in its 

representation. Furthermore, the Court would overlook Defendant’s technical noncompliance with LRCiv 83.3 as Plaintiff did not show prejudice by the non-compliance, 

and LBBS ultimately provided the necessary information. See Gagan, 2013 WL 

1339935, at *3 (overlooking a party’s technical non-compliance with LRCiv 83.3). 

Case 2:13-cv-02274-JAT Document 70 Filed 05/13/16 Page 3 of 3