Commercial Credit Group Incorporated v. ABS Oilfield Supply Incorporated

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: June 13, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01027
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Commercial Credit Group Incorporated, No. CV-25-01027-PHX-MTL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 ABS Oilfield Supply Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is a Motion and Application to Withdraw as Counsel without 16 Client Consent. (Doc. 27.) Therein, Attorneys Grant Frazier, Dustin Romney, Brennan 17 Bowen, and Frazier Law PLLC seek the Court’s leave to withdraw as counsel for 18 Defendants ABS Oilfield Supply, Inc.; James Colin Real Crowshaw; Linda Danielle 19 Thoresen; Patriot Equipment Supply, Inc.; Transpat Solutions LLC; and FlipQuick, Inc. 20 (Id.)* 21 A motion without client consent must be supported by “justifiable cause.” Lovvorn 22 v. Johnston, 118 F.2d 704, 706 (9th Cir. 1941) (“An attorney may not, in the absence of 23 the client’s consent, withdraw from a case without justifiable cause; and then only after 24 proper notice to his client, and on leave of the court.”). “Factors that a district court should 25 consider when ruling upon a motion to withdraw as counsel include: (1) the reasons why 26 withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the 27 * The Court is aware of Defendants’ representation that James Colin Real Crowshaw has not been served in this action (Doc. 21 at 2 n.1) and notes that no affidavit of service as to 28 Mr. Crowshaw has been filed on the docket. The Court takes no action at this time since Plaintiff is within the ninety-day window to serve Mr. Crowshaw. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 1 harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which 2 withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Gagan v. Monroe, No. CIV 99-1427- 3 PHX-RCB, 2013 WL 1339935, at *4 (D. Ariz. Apr. 1, 2013) (citation omitted). 4 While intentionally ambiguous to preserve confidentiality, the motion explains that 5 withdrawal is sought due to ethical considerations listed in Arizona Ethics Rule 6 1.16(b)(4)-(7). The rule provides that a lawyer may withdraw if: 7 (4) the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a 8 fundamental disagreement; 9 (5) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given 10 reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled; 11 (6) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial 12 burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or 13 (7) other good cause for withdrawal exists. 14 15 Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 42, ER 1.16. Under the circumstances, the Court accepts Counsel’s ethical 16 concerns in continued representation as a sufficient explanation for seeking withdrawal. 17 The Court also finds that withdrawal will not unfairly prejudice the other litigants, 18 harm the administration of justice, or greatly delay resolution of this action. The Court has 19 not yet entered a Rule 16 scheduling order, and the parties have yet to enter discovery. 20 For these reasons, the Court concludes that the motion is supported by justifiable 21 cause and conforms with the requirements of LRCiv 83.3(b). Granting the motion, 22 however, means these Defendants are without representation. Four of these Defendants are 23 either corporate entities or limited liability companies, and it is a longstanding rule that 24 business entities such as these may only appear in federal court through a licensed attorney. 25 Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 26 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries, for example, that a 27 corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel. As the courts 28 have recognized, the rationale for that rule applies equally to all artificial entities.”) || Cnternal citations omitted); see also G&G Closed Cir. Events LLC v. Espinoza, No. CV- 2|| 18-08216-PCT-JAT, 2019 WL 1858115, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 25, 2019). 3 As such, the Court will stay all deadlines in this case for sixty (60) days to give these 4|| Defendants the time and opportunity to retain substitute counsel. If no Notice of 5 || Appearance is filed on or before the expiration of the stay, the Court will grant the motion 6 || to withdraw. The Court cautions the business entity Defendants that if they fail to timely 7 || retain substitute counsel, their answer may be stricken and they may be at risk of default. 8 || McNally v. Commonwealth Fin. Sys., Inc., No. 12-CV-2770-IEG (MDD), 2013 WL 685364, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2013). 10 Accordingly, 11 IT IS ORDERED staying proceedings and all deadlines in this case until Tuesday, 12] August 12, 2025. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before Wednesday, August 13, 2025, Defendants ABS Oilfield Supply, Inc.; Patriot Equipment Supply, Inc.; Transpat Solutions 15 || LLC; and FlipQuick, Inc. must retain substitute counsel who must file a Notice of Appearance with this Court. If no Notice of Appearance is filed, the Court will strike the 17 || business entity Defendants’ answer, and they will be at risk of default. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before Wednesday, August 13, 2025, Defendants Linda Danielle Thoresen and James Colin Real Crowshaw must either: (1) retain substitute counsel who must file a Notice of Appearance with this Court; or (2) file a notice with the Court that they will be proceeding pro se. 22 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED directing the Withdrawing Attorneys to email a copy 23 || of this Order to the relevant Defendants and file a certificate of compliance with this Court 24 || no later than Wednesday, June 18, 2025. 25 Dated this 13th day of June, 2025. 26 27 Michel T. dihurdle 28 Michael T. Liburdi United States District Judge -3-