Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

AMERICAN WESTERN HOME INSURANCE COMPANY v. JOHNSON, 11-CV-4071. (2015)

Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas Number: infdco20150917e44 Visitors: 3
Filed: Sep. 15, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 15, 2015
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY , District Judge . Before the Court is a Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 53) filed on behalf of John Rogers, attorney for Separate Defendants Cherry Hill Printing, Inc., and Don Wolf. Also before the Court is a Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions (ECF No. 54) filed on behalf of Separate Defendants Cherry Hill Printing, Inc. and Don Wolf. Plaintiff has filed a response (ECF No. 55) to the Motion for Extension of Time. The Court finds these matters ripe
More

ORDER

Before the Court is a Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 53) filed on behalf of John Rogers, attorney for Separate Defendants Cherry Hill Printing, Inc., and Don Wolf. Also before the Court is a Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions (ECF No. 54) filed on behalf of Separate Defendants Cherry Hill Printing, Inc. and Don Wolf. Plaintiff has filed a response (ECF No. 55) to the Motion for Extension of Time. The Court finds these matters ripe for consideration.

Separate Defendants' attorney, John Rogers, states that he "undertook counsel representation of Separate Defendants in this matter due to his representation of clients in a closely related federal case, Kolbek, et. al v. Twenty-First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church et al., 4:10-cv-04124." John Rogers now requests that he be permitted to withdraw because "further representation in this matter is substantially beyond the scope of the representation undertaken on behalf of Separate Defendants" in the related Kolbek case. Mr. Rogers also states that he has not received compensation for his continued representation of Separate Defendants in this matter. Along with his Motion to Withdraw, Mr. Rogers has filed a Motion for Extension on behalf of Separate Defendants requesting that their deadline to file dispositive motions be extended so that they might have the opportunity to find new representation.

Upon consideration of the motions (ECF Nos. 53-54), the Court finds that they should be and hereby are DENIED. This litigation has been pending for several years, and the September 18 deadline for filing dispositive motions is quickly approaching. The Court declines to extend these deadlines any further. To allow Mr. Rogers to withdraw at this particular time would be highly prejudicial to Separate Defendants because it would leave them without adequate time find an attorney to respond to dispositive motions filed by Plaintiff or to file dispositive motions on their behalf, if necessary. Mr. Rogers may refile his Motion to Withdraw after the dispositive motions period, and the Court will reconsider whether withdrawal might be appropriate at that time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer