Greenwich Investment Management Incorporated v. Aegis Capital Corporation

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Greenwich Investment Management No. CV-22-00129-PHX-MTL Incorporated, 10 ORDER Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 Aegis Capital Corporation, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff Greenwich Investment Management, Inc.’s Motion to 16 Withdraw as Counsel (Doc. 121). Therein, Attorneys Valeri S. Pappas, Michael 17 Murray, and Jennifer A Tiedeken of the law firm of Davis & Ceriani, P.C. and Michael 18 and Matthew LaVelle of the law firm LaVelle & LaVelle, PLC (collectively, “Counsel”) 19 request leave to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff. (Id. at 1-2.) They ask that the Court 20 provide 60 days to Plaintiff to secure new lawyers. Defendants do not object to the 21 Motion. (Doc. 122.) 22 Granting the Motion could leave Plaintiff unrepresented if, after 60 days, new 23 counsel is not retained. Because Plaintiff is a corporation, it cannot represent itself while it 24 awaits new counsel. Reading Intern., Inc. v. Malulani Grp., Ltd., 814 F.3d 1046, 1053 (9th 25 Cir. 2016) (“A corporation must be represented by counsel.”) The Court will not place 26 Plaintiff in such a position. If Counsel wishes to withdraw, it must first secure substitute 27 counsel. Thus, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion without prejudice while Counsel 28 attempts to do so. During that period, however, Counsel remains responsible for Plaintiff’s 1 || representation in this matter. To that end, the Court will continue to enforce deadlines. 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 121) without prejudice. 4 Dated this 26th day of October, 2023. 5 ° Wichal T. Hburde Michael T, Liburdi 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-