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

1 2 3 4 5 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

IN THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA LAWRENCE J. WARFIELD, RECEIVER, Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL ALANIZ, et al. Defendants. Pending is the Motion for Withdrawal From Representation as Attorney of Record for Defendants Leonard and Betty Bestgen With Consent, IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion. Specifically, the Rule 16 Scheduling Order stated that the parties should anticipate a trial date as soon as 30 days after the Final Pretrial conference (set in this case for November 6, 2006) and based on this calculation the parties should deem the deadlines in the Rule 16 scheduling order to be the equivalent of a firm trial date. (Doc. #264 at 6). Local Rule Civil 83.3 makes clear that withdrawal will not be permitted once a firm trial date has been set. Moreover, in this case, it would be unfair and inefficient to allow counsel to withdraw when the case has been pending since December 2003 and on the eve of trial counsel wishes to leave his clients pro se. ORDER NO. CV'03 2390 PHX JAT

Dated this 21st day of September, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-02390-JAT

Document 520

Filed 09/21/2006

Page 1 of 1