Filed: Dec. 29, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 29, 2015
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON , District Judge . ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO WITHDRAW This matter is before the Court Bayer's motion for order to dismiss with prejudice in accord with CMO 79 and counsel's response thereto. Plaintiff's counsel has made a number of filing mistakes that complicate ruling on the motion. The Court first reviews these errors. On November 24, 2015, plaintiff's counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record (Doc. 10). Ultimately, on December 22, 2015, the Court de
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON , District Judge . ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO WITHDRAW This matter is before the Court Bayer's motion for order to dismiss with prejudice in accord with CMO 79 and counsel's response thereto. Plaintiff's counsel has made a number of filing mistakes that complicate ruling on the motion. The Court first reviews these errors. On November 24, 2015, plaintiff's counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record (Doc. 10). Ultimately, on December 22, 2015, the Court den..
More
ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO WITHDRAW
This matter is before the Court Bayer's motion for order to dismiss with prejudice in accord with CMO 79 and counsel's response thereto. Plaintiff's counsel has made a number of filing mistakes that complicate ruling on the motion. The Court first reviews these errors.
On November 24, 2015, plaintiff's counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record (Doc. 10). Ultimately, on December 22, 2015, the Court denied the motion for failure to provide the Court with the plaintiff's last known address as required by local rules (Doc. 13 (directing counsel to file an amended motion to withdraw with the requisite information) and Doc. 14 (denying the motion to withdraw for failure to file an amended pleading with the requisite information)). Counsel claims that he filed amended pleadings stating the plaintiff's last known address. However both amended motions to withdraw were improperly filed in the MDL 2100 Master Docket and were stricken by the Court (09-2100 Doc. 3866 and Doc. 3877). In both instances, counsel was instructed to refile the motion in the appropriate member action (MDL 2100 Doc. 3866 ("Efiler is instructed to refile the document in the member case, 12-10446-DRH-PMF, and include the member case number on the PDF document"); Doc. 3877 ("Efiler is instructed to refile the document in the member case 12-cv-10446-DRH-PMF, and include the member case number on the PDF document.")), Counsel failed to comply with the Court's directive. Counsel did, however, file an amended pleading, as to the above captioned plaintiff, in an unrelated member action that was dismissed with prejudice in October of 2014 (Gena Price v. Bayer Corporation et al., 3:12-cv-10466-DRH-PMF). This motion has also been stricken.
In responding to Bayer's motion to dismiss with prejudice, counsel asks that he be permitted to withdraw as counsel of record and that plaintiff be allowed a reasonable amount of time to respond to the pending motion to dismiss. The Court is able to discern from the various motions to withdraw that the plaintiff does not object to counsel's request and that the plaintiff's last known address is 3951 NW 48th Terrace, #306, Gainesville, Florida 32606. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS leave to withdraw and DIRECTS as follows with regard to service of this order on the plaintiff, a supplementary entry of appearance, and responding to the motion to dismiss with prejudice:
1. MOVANT is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order of withdrawal within 7 days upon all counsel of record and upon unrepresented parties as required by Local Rule 83.1.
2. Supplementary Entry of Appearance: Should plaintiff choose to continue pursuing this action, plaintiff or her new counsel must file a supplementary entry of appearance on or before January 19, 2016. Failure to timely comply with this directive may result in dismissal of the plaintiff's case for failure to prosecute or comply with orders of this Court. Further, as described below, the plaintiff's case is presently at risk of being dismissed with prejudice in accord with CMO 79.
3. In light of the subject order, the Court will grant the plaintiff a small extension with regard to the pending motion to dismiss with prejudice. The plaintiff is ALLOWED until January 29, 2016 to respond to the pending motion to dismiss. Failure to timely respond will result in the plaintiff's action being dismissed WITH prejudice in accord with CMO 79.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
