IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION 

MELODY JOY CANTU and 

DR. RODRIGO CANTU, 

Plaintiffs 

v. CASE NO. 5:20-CV-00746-JKP (HJB 

DR. SANDRA GUERRA and 

DIGITAL FORENSICS CORPORATION, LLC 

Defendants 

COUNSEL MINNS' SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFFS' 

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL, AND 

ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE 

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT: 

NOW COMES Rain Minns and hereby files a supplement to Plaintiffs' 

Motion to Substitute Counsel [Doc. 129], and in support thereof, shows the Court as 

follows. 

1. Quite a while back, the Plaintiffs reasonably did not want Ms. Minns to 

continue as local counsel. This is because the presence of Attorney Hassard in 

this case, who already had a co-counsel role and is also licensed in the Western 

District of Texas, made it duplicative to keep Ms. Minns on as local counsel. 

In fact, the Plaintiffs last paid Ms. Minns in May of 2021-more than two 

1 

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 131 Filed 08/22/23 Page 1 of 5
years ago. If Ms. Minns is forced by the court to remain as local counsel, then 

it forces a continued attorney-client representation that Plaintiffs and counsel 

both believe had reached its logical and financially-prudent conclusion. 

2. Ms. Minns has not had any involvement in the case since then. 

3. Until last week's unpleasant surprise, it was Ms. Minns' understanding that 

she had been formally substituted out of the case long ago. In hindsight, Ms. 

Minns would have checked the record earlier to ensure that the substitution 

had been done. Now, the matter is what it is. Ms. Minns has no ability to 

prepare for trial at this point, and if she is not allowed to be substituted out as 

counsel, she would be forced to move for a continuance. 

4. On Monday, there was an attempt by Plaintiffs to rectify the error with the 

filing for Ms. Minns to be replaced by Mr. Hassard, who is also licensed in 

the district [Doc. 129]. 

5. On Tuesday (today), Defendants filed their Response in Opposition to 

Plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute Counsel [Doc. 130]. Defendants argue Ms. 

Minns should be barred from being substituted out as counsel of record due 

to various technicalities, i.e., that she failed to confer with defense counsel 

prior to filing her motion, that she effectively seeks to withdraw as counsel 

(because the attorney who would replace her is already present in the case), 

2 

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 131 Filed 08/22/23 Page 2 of 5
and that her motion "appears" to be designed to delay the trial (which it is 

not). None of these arguments is a sufficient reason for the Court to deny Ms. 

Minns' motion. 

6. However, Plaintiffs' motion to substitute is for good cause. As the Court has 

previously noted, Ms. Minns was not conferred with regarding pretrial or trial 

dates. In addition, she runs a small, two-attorney law firm, has just finished a 

hard two-week trial, has a kid headed back to school this week, and is in the 

process of catching up on the firm's other cases. Since Mr. Hassard is licensed 

in the district, Ms. Minns' purpose as local counsel has been obviated. And, it 

was reasonable and understandable that the clients would want to avoid the 

expense of retaining two local attorneys. 

7. Furthermore, Mr. Hassard was previously entered in the record as "additional" 

counsel. He has represented Plaintiffs for over a year as local counsel. 

Pursuant to the court's approval, his substitution for Ms. Minns is a formality, 

and would not delay the trial. In fact, neither Mr. Hassard nor Ms. Minns is 

the attorney in charge for Plaintiffs. The attorney in charge is Tor Ekeland. 

This substitution of counsel would not cause a trial delay or prejudice the 

Defendants and Ms. Minns reiterates that assurance. 

8. Plaintiffs have also approved the substitution of counsel. 

3 

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 131 Filed 08/22/23 Page 3 of 5
9. Since receiving opposing counsel's opposition, Ms. Minns has personally 

conferred with Defendants' counsel to explain that the substitution is intended 

to obviate Ms. Minns' need to otherwise file for a continuance. Ironically, in 

filing their opposition to the substitution, Defendants create the very need for 

a continuance motion that they profess to want to avoid. 

CONCLUSION 

10. Plaintiffs' requested substitution of counsel is based on good cause and it will 

not delay the scheduled trial in this matter or prejudice Defendants. For these 

reasons and for all the reasons given herein, Ms. Minns asks this Court to grant 

Plaintiffs' motion to substitute Michael Hassard in her place. Alternatively, if 

the substitution is denied, then Ms. Minns requests a continuance so that she 

can have an opportunity to adequately prepare as local counsel for this trial. 

~ Respectfully submitted on the Z 2 day of August, 2023. 

4 

Rain Levy Minns Udall 

State Bar No. 24034581 

Minns Law Firm, P.C. 

d/b/a Rain Minns Law Firm 

4412 Spicewood Springs Road, Suite 500 

Austin, Texas 78759-8583 

Phone: (512)372-3222 

Facsimile: (512) 861-2403 

rain(ci>rainminnslaw.com 

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 131 Filed 08/22/23 Page 4 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

I certify that on August 22, 2023 I conferred with Defendants' counsel 

regarding Plaintiffs' motion for substitution. We were unable to reach an agreement. 

Rain Levy Minns Udall 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on August 22, 2023 a true and correct copy of the foregoing was 

sent electronically through the CM/ECF system as to all counsel of record. 

Rain Levy Minns Udall 

5 

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 131 Filed 08/22/23 Page 5 of 5