Filed: May 25, 2012
Latest Update: May 25, 2012
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr., District Judge. Trisha Holland, counsel for Defendant in the above case, has served this Court with a notice of leave of absence from July 2 through July 12, 2012, during which she intends on taking a family vacation. (Doc. 21.) The Court, however, is somewhat confused by counsel's submission. For example, this unusual notice simply declares that unless this Court objects to counsel's proposed absence, then it shall be automatically granted. The Court's exhaustiv
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr., District Judge. Trisha Holland, counsel for Defendant in the above case, has served this Court with a notice of leave of absence from July 2 through July 12, 2012, during which she intends on taking a family vacation. (Doc. 21.) The Court, however, is somewhat confused by counsel's submission. For example, this unusual notice simply declares that unless this Court objects to counsel's proposed absence, then it shall be automatically granted. The Court's exhaustive..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr., District Judge.
Trisha Holland, counsel for Defendant in the above case, has served this Court with a notice of leave of absence from July 2 through July 12, 2012, during which she intends on taking a family vacation. (Doc. 21.) The Court, however, is somewhat confused by counsel's submission. For example, this unusual notice simply declares that unless this Court objects to counsel's proposed absence, then it shall be automatically granted.
The Court's exhaustive review of its rules has failed to uncover any provision allowing for members of this bar to unilaterally declare their absence. Rather, Southern District of Georgia Local Rule 83.9 governs leaves of absence from this Court. Furthermore, while this rule states that leaves of absence may be granted as a matter of course," there is nothing in the rule that would allow counsel to simply declare her absence. S.D. Ga. L.R. 83.9. Perhaps Ms. Holland has not read our local rules and submitted her request for leave of absence in conformance with Georgia Uniform Court Rule 16, which allows leaves of absence to be granted where either opposing counsel or the court fails to abject. While it has been some time since it researched the issue, the Court's understanding is that it is not bound by the Georgia Uniform Court Rules. Should the Court receive a proper Rule 83.9 request for leave of absence, the Court will consider it at that time.
However, the Court must question even the need for such a motion. On March 21, 2012, the Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction in this matter because Defendants failed to establish that the amount in controversy was greater than $75,000, (Doc. 20.) As a result, the Court remanded the case to the Superior Court of Chatham County, presumably where it still remains. Therefore, there seems little need for a leave of absence in this case, which is no longer before this Court. Perhaps counsel should declare herself on leave from the Superior Court of Chatham County, which this Court understands to follow the Georgia Uniform Court Rules.
SO ORDERED.
