McCause v. American Airlines, Inc.

N.D. Oklahoma

McCause v. American Airlines, Inc.

DecidedDecember 13, 2022

Docket4:22-cv-00503

StatusUnknown

This text of McCause v. American Airlines, Inc. (McCause v. American Airlines, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McCause v. American Airlines, Inc., (N.D. Okla. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

ADA MCCAUSE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 22-CV-503-JFH-CDL

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Withdraw filed by Bryan S. Lower (“Movant”), who is counsel of record for Plaintiff Ada McCause (“Plaintiff”). Dkt. No. 5. Movant represents that he is unable to effectively represent Plaintiff at this time. Id. at 1. In this district, an attorney of record shall not withdraw from a case except upon reasonable notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case and by leave of the judge to whom the case is assigned. LGnR4-4. “The grant or denial of an attorney’s motion to withdraw in a civil case is a matter addressed to the discretion of the trial court.” Sanders v. Sw. Bell Tel., L.P., No. 03-CV-0452-CVE-FHM, 2009 WL 1765981, at *2 (N.D. Okla. June 16, 2009) (citing Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, Inc., 694 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir.1982). “Generally, district courts consider whether the case will be disrupted by the withdrawal of counsel; however, there are some situations in which an attorney will be permitted to withdraw even if it results in disruption.” Sanders, No. 03-CV-0452-CVE-FHM, 2009 WL 1765981, at *2; see Whiting v. Lacara, 187 F.3d 317, 321 (2d Cir. 1999); see, e.g., Washington, 694 F.2d at 1088 (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting counsel’s motion to withdraw where communication had deteriorated between attorney and client). Here, Movant indicates that Plaintiff has been informed of his request to withdraw and will proceed pro se until she can retain new counsel. Dkt. No. 5 at 1. Having reviewed the Motion, the Court finds a sufficient basis to grant Movant’s request to withdraw. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

(1) the Motion to Withdraw [Dkt. No. 5] is GRANTED, and Bryan S. Lower is terminated as counsel of record for Plaintiff; and (2) Bryan S. Lower is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff and file a certificate of service containing Plaintiff’s address. Dated this 13th day of December 2022. ____________________________________ JOHN F. HEIL, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

ADA MCCAUSE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 22-CV-503-JFH-CDL

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Withdraw filed by Bryan S. Lower (“Movant”), who is counsel of record for Plaintiff Ada McCause (“Plaintiff”). Dkt. No. 5. Movant represents that he is unable to effectively represent Plaintiff at this time. Id. at 1. In this district, an attorney of record shall not withdraw from a case except upon reasonable notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case and by leave of the judge to whom the case is assigned. LGnR4-4. “The grant or denial of an attorney’s motion to withdraw in a civil case is a matter addressed to the discretion of the trial court.” Sanders v. Sw. Bell Tel., L.P., No. 03-CV-0452-CVE-FHM, 2009 WL 1765981, at *2 (N.D. Okla. June 16, 2009) (citing Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, Inc., 694 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir.1982). “Generally, district courts consider whether the case will be disrupted by the withdrawal of counsel; however, there are some situations in which an attorney will be permitted to withdraw even if it results in disruption.” Sanders, No. 03-CV-0452-CVE-FHM, 2009 WL 1765981, at *2; see Whiting v. Lacara, 187 F.3d 317, 321 (2d Cir. 1999); see, e.g., Washington, 694 F.2d at 1088 (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting counsel’s motion to withdraw where communication had deteriorated between attorney and client). Here, Movant indicates that Plaintiff has been informed of his request to withdraw and will proceed pro se until she can retain new counsel. Dkt. No. 5 at 1. Having reviewed the Motion, the Court finds a sufficient basis to grant Movant’s request to withdraw. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

(1) the Motion to Withdraw [Dkt. No. 5] is GRANTED, and Bryan S. Lower is terminated as counsel of record for Plaintiff; and (2) Bryan S. Lower is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff and file a certificate of service containing Plaintiff’s address. Dated this 13th day of December 2022. ____________________________________ JOHN F. HEIL, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

McCause v. American Airlines, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccause-v-american-airlines-inc-oknd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack