Free Order on Motion to Withdraw - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 On November 1, 2006 attorneys for Defendants Global Missions, El Shaddai 18 Ministries, Second Chance Ministries, and Michael Cambra filed a Motion for Leave to 19 Withdraw as Counsel (Dkt. #159). Plaintiff Joseph Studnek has filed an Objection to the 20 Motion (Dkt. #161) and Defendants' counsel has filed a Reply (Dkt. # 162). 21 Pursuant to Local Rule 83.3(b)(1), defense counsels' Motion for Leave to Withdraw 22 as Counsel states that it is filed with the clients' approval and consent and it includes the 23 clients' signatures of approval. However, defense counsel did not comply fully with Local 24 Rule 83.3(b)(1) in that they did not provide the last known residences and telephone numbers 25 for their clients. 26 Moreover, on September 19, 2006 Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan filed with the 27 Court a remark that Plaintiff and Defendants Global Missions, El Shaddai Ministries, Second 28
Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM Document 167 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 1 of 2

Estate of Joseph J. Studnek, by and) through its Personal Representative,) ) Joseph M. Studnek, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Ambassador of Global Missions) ) Unlimited, and his Successor, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

No. CIV-04-0595-PHX-MHM ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Chance Ministries, and Michael Cambra had reached a settlement. On September 20, 2006 Judge Duncan filed with the Court a Report and Recommendation suggesting that the Court stay the litigation pending final effectuation of the settlement (Dkt. #153). Judge Duncan further recommended that the Court take no action on any pending matters in light of the fact that the parties have reached an agreement. Finally, a "corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel." Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202, 113 S.Ct. 716, 721 (1993). The court notes that no notice of substitution of new counsel has been filed on behalf of Defendants. In light of corporate Defendants' lack of new counsel if the Court grants current counsels' Motion to withdraw, and the critical stage of the case, Defendants' counsels' Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel is denied. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' counsels' Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel (Dkt. #159) is denied. DATED this 16th day of November, 2006.

-2Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM Document 167 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 2 of 2