Green Recycling of Michigan, Inc. v. City of Warren

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: December 16, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-12650
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

GREEN RECYCLING OF MICHIGAN, INC., A Michigan corporation

Plaintiff v. Case No. 25-cv-12650 Honorable Linda V. Parker CITY OF WARREN,

Defendant,

__________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW (ECF NO.14.)

Pending before the Court is a motion to withdraw filed by counsel for Plaintiff, Green Recycling of Michigan, Inc. (“Plaintiff”): Mark S. Demorest of Demorest Law Firm, PLLC (“Mr. Demorest” or “Counsel”) (ECF No. 14.) The stated basis for the motion is a breakdown in communication. On today’s date, the Court held a hearing on the motion to withdraw. Mr. Demorest was the only person present to represent the matter. Mr. Demorest stated that he made Plaintiff aware of the hearing via email, and that Plaintiff confirmed receipt. Defendant’s counsel could not attend the hearing due to a scheduling conflict, but did not oppose the motion. (ECF No. 14 at PageID.106.) The Court finds good cause for Plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw and that such withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on Plaintiff’s interests. See Mich. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.16. Therefore, the Court is granting Counsel’s motion. The Court is staying the proceeding for 30 days to allow

Plaintiff the opportunity to retain new counsel. The Court warns Plaintiff that, as a corporate entity, it cannot proceed in this matter without an attorney. See, e.g., Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506

U.S. 194, 201-202 (1993) (citing cases); Doherty v. Am. Motors Corp., 728 F.2d 334, 340 (6th Cir. 1984) (citations omitted). When a corporation declines to hire counsel to represent it, the court may properly dismiss the corporate entity’s claims, if it is a plaintiff, or strike its defenses, if it is a defendant. Greater

Southeast Cmty. Hosp. Found., Inc. v. Potter, 586 F.3d 1, 5 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (citing Donovan v. Road Rangers Country Junction, Inc., 736 F.2d 1004, 1005 (5th Cir. 1984) and Strong Delivery Ministry Ass’n v. Bd. of Appeals of Cook Cnty., 543 F.2d

32, 33 (7th Cir. 1976)). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that counsel’s motion to withdraw (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED and Mark S. Demorest of Demorest Law Firm, PLLC, is terminated

as counsel. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is STAYED for 30 days to allow Plaintiff to retain new counsel, who shall file a written appearance on the

docket on or before January 15, 2026. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s failure to retain counsel or failure for new counsel to enter a written appearance within 30 days of this

Opinion and Order will result in Plaintiff’s claims being dismissed without further notice of the Court, and the Court will conduct further proceedings in its absence in accordance with the law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Demorest shall serve a copy of this Opinion and Order on Plaintiff and file proof of service with the Court within seven (7) days. SO ORDERED.

s/ Linda V. Parker LINDA V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: December 16, 2025