Mobilization Funding, LLC v. Halvorson Construction Group, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE MOBILIZATION FUNDING, LLC, a Case No. 2:18-cv-01412-RAJ South Carolina limited liability company, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO Plaintiff, WITHDRAW

v.

GROUP, LLC; a Washington limited liability company; and CEC ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING, LLC, a Washington limited liability company,

Defendants.

HALVORSON CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC; a Washington limited liability company, Third Party Plaintiff, v. JOHN and JANE DOE CHASE, individually and the marital community comprised thereof, Third Party Defendants. This matter is before the Court on counsel for Defendant Halvorson Construction Group, LLC’s (“Halvorson”) motion to withdraw. Dkt. # 28. Plaintiff Mobilization Funding (“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion. Dkt. # 32. On August 19, 2019, HCG petitioned King County Superior Court for the appointment of a general receiver. The petition was granted and on August 20, 2019, the King County Superior Court entered an order appointing a Receiver for Halvorson. Dkt. # 26-1. Halvorson subsequently assigned all of its assets to the Receiver. Dkt. # 26-1. Counsel for Halvorson, Garth A. Schlemlein, Brian K. Keeley, and the law firm of Schlemlein Fick & Scruggs PLLC (“Counsel”) now moves to withdraw as counsel in this matter under Local Rule 83.2(b)(1). Dkt. # 28. Counsel argues that good cause exists to allow withdrawal because, due to the appointment of a Receiver, Halvorson has undergone a change in who effectively controls and directs its decisions. Dkt. # 28 at 3. Counsel attempted to obtain clarity from the Receiver regarding Counsel’s continued participation in the case but was told that the Receiver had “not decided whether the Receiver [would] participate in this case or, if so, who [would] act as its counsel in that regard.” Dkt. # 28 at 1. Counsel served copies of this motion on counsel for Plaintiff and the Receiver. Dkt. # 28 at 4. Counsel also advised Halvorson and the Receiver that as a corporate entity, Halvorson may not participate in this case without counsel and failure to obtain counsel may result in a default judgment or dismissal. Dkt. # 28 at 4. Plaintiff objects, arguing that withdrawal would prejudice Plaintiff because it would leave Halvorson unrepresented and unable to respond to discovery requests and “keep [the] case moving.” Dkt. # 32 at 3. The Court finds that movants have shown good cause for leave to withdraw. However, the court notes no substitute counsel has appeared in this matter for Halvorson. “[A] corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02 (1993). Accordingly, the Court will give Halvorson the opportunity to obtain substitute counsel. The Court hereby ORDERS: 1. Halvorson shall have new counsel enter an appearance on its behalf on or before March 20, 2020. If Halvorson fails to have substitute counsel enter an appearance by March 20, 2020, the Court may strike the answer and claims of Halvorson and enter default. 2. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED pending appearance of new counsel for Halvorson. Dkt. # 28. Moving counsel may withdraw only upon appearance of new counsel for Halvorson, or after March 20, 2020, whichever occurs first. 3. Moving counsel shall immediately serve a copy of this Order on Halvorson and the Receiver and file a certificate of service with the Court. DATED this 6th day of March, 2020. A

The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge