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


File Size: 26.6 kB
Pages: 2
Date: January 9, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: Arizona
Category: District Court of Arizona
Author: unknown
Word Count: 341 Words, 2,122 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/azd/43021/167.pdf

Download Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney - District Court of Arizona ( 26.6 kB)


Preview Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney - District Court of Arizona
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 The court has before it Richard McDaniels's "Motion to Withdraw without Clients' Consent and Request for Expedited Consideration" (doc. 161). Mr. McDaniel wants to withdraw as counsel of record for the defendants Milton and Kathi Guenther. He states that he has not been paid. The Guenthers have been served with the motion but have not responded. The motion complies with LRCiv 83.3(b)(2). The Guenthers have been advised of their need to file a post-trial memorandum no later than March 3, 2008, limited solely to the redetermination of the amount of fees in connection with the remand order on unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is GRANTED (doc.
Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM Document 167 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Timothy A. Shimko, Shimko & Piscitelli,) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) vs. ) ) David Goldfarb, Rhona Goldfarb, ) Richard Ross, Marcia Ross, ) Milton Guenther and Kathi Guenther; ) ) Defendants, ) ) Timothy A. Shimko, Shimko & Piscitelli,) ) Plaintiffs, ) vs. ) ) ) Paul Woodcock and ) Bobbi Woodcock, ) ) Defendants. ) ) No. CV-04-00078-PHX-FJM ORDER

CV-05-1387-PHX-FJM

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

161), and all further notice to the Guenthers shall be at the address indicated in the motion. The Guenthers are advised that this case will proceed on the existing schedule whether they obtain substituted counsel or not. Nor, given the age of this case, will there be any continuances based upon the request of substituted counsel. Thus if the Guenthers do intend to obtain substituted counsel, they should do so as soon as possible. The court notes that it consolidated CV-05-1387 with this case and in that case Mr. McDaniel represents the Woodcocks. Although Mr. McDaniel no longer represents the Guenthers in this consolidated proceeding, he continues to represent the Woodcocks. DATED this 9th day of January, 2008.

-2Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM Document 167 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 2 of 2