Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Kariuki v. Shac, LLC., 2:14-cv-01118-JCM-CWH. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180126j09 Visitors: 19
Filed: Jan. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Presently before the court is plaintiffs' counsel Trevor J. Hatfield's motion to withdraw as counsel (ECF No. 45), motion to continue trial (ECF No. 46), and motion to stay case (ECF No. 47). Plaintiffs' counsel argues that his motion to withdraw as counsel is appropriate pursuant to Local Rule IA-06. (ECF No. 45). Plaintiffs' counsel notified plaintiffs of his intent to withdraw on January 23, 2018 at an in-person meeting. Id. While he claims to b
More

ORDER

Presently before the court is plaintiffs' counsel Trevor J. Hatfield's motion to withdraw as counsel (ECF No. 45), motion to continue trial (ECF No. 46), and motion to stay case (ECF No. 47).

Plaintiffs' counsel argues that his motion to withdraw as counsel is appropriate pursuant to Local Rule IA-06. (ECF No. 45). Plaintiffs' counsel notified plaintiffs of his intent to withdraw on January 23, 2018 at an in-person meeting. Id. While he claims to be unable to disclose the reason to the court, pursuant to Local Rule 11-06(e), plaintiffs' counsel believes there is good cause to withdraw. Id.

Plaintiffs' counsel first learned of the issue in question at the unsuccessful settlement conference held on January 22, 2018. Id. He then called the State Bar of Nevada for advice. Id. Based on this conversation, plaintiffs' counsel believes he has a clear conflict with plaintiffs, and that his continued representation of plaintiffs would result in potential violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Id. After meeting with plaintiffs, plaintiffs' counsel believes plaintiffs consented to the revocation of his representation. Id.

Upon filing the motion to withdraw counsel (ECF No. 45), plaintiffs' counsel then filed a motion to continue trial (ECF No. 46), as well as a motion to stay case (ECF No. 47).

Pursuant to Rule IA 11-06(e), plaintiffs' counsel requests a continuance from calendar call scheduled for January 31, 2018 and from the motions in limine filed by certain defendants on January 18, 2018, with responses due February 1, 2018. (ECF No. 46).

Plaintiffs' counsel's motion to stay case requests a stay of 90 days to allow plaintiffs time to retain new counsel and for plaintiffs' new counsel to become apprised of the case. (ECF No. 47).

Plaintiffs' counsel's withdrawal will result in a delay of trial. In such an event, Local Rule IA 11-06(e) requires counsel to request specific relief from the current schedule in conjunction with the motion to withdraw as counsel. Plaintiffs' counsel's motions to continue trial and to stay case satisfy this specific relief requirement.

Plaintiffs' counsel has complied with the requirements of Local Rile IA 11-06 in order to properly withdraw as counsel. Accordingly, the court will grant plaintiffs' counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel. (ECF No. 45).

Additionally, given counsel's withdrawal, the court will grant plaintiffs' counsel's motion to continue trial (ECF No. 46), and motion to stay case (ECF No. 47). The court finds 90 days to be an adequate period of time for plaintiffs to obtain new counsel.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiffs' counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel (ECF No. 45) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' counsel's motion to continue trial (ECF No. 46) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' counsel's motion to stay case (ECF No. 47) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

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