Mobilization Funding, LLC v. Halvorson Construction Group, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 MOBILIZATION FUNDING, LLC, a Case No. 2:18-cv-01412-RAJ 11 South Carolina limited liability company, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 Plaintiff, WITHDRAW

13 v.

14 HALVORSON CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC; a Washington limited 15 liability company; and CEC ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING, LLC, a 16 Washington limited liability company,

17 Defendants.

18 HALVORSON CONSTRUCTION 19 GROUP, LLC; a Washington limited liability company, 20 Third Party Plaintiff, 21 v. 22 JOHN and JANE DOE CHASE, 23 individually and the marital community comprised thereof, 24 Third Party Defendants. 25 26 1 This matter is before the Court on counsel for Defendant Halvorson Construction 2 Group, LLC’s (“Halvorson”) motion to withdraw. Dkt. # 28. Plaintiff Mobilization 3 Funding (“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion. Dkt. # 32. 4 On August 19, 2019, HCG petitioned King County Superior Court for the 5 appointment of a general receiver. The petition was granted and on August 20, 2019, the 6 King County Superior Court entered an order appointing a Receiver for Halvorson. Dkt. 7 # 26-1. Halvorson subsequently assigned all of its assets to the Receiver. Dkt. # 26-1. 8 Counsel for Halvorson, Garth A. Schlemlein, Brian K. Keeley, and the law firm of 9 Schlemlein Fick & Scruggs PLLC (“Counsel”) now moves to withdraw as counsel in this 10 matter under Local Rule 83.2(b)(1). Dkt. # 28. 11 Counsel argues that good cause exists to allow withdrawal because, due to the 12 appointment of a Receiver, Halvorson has undergone a change in who effectively 13 controls and directs its decisions. Dkt. # 28 at 3. Counsel attempted to obtain clarity 14 from the Receiver regarding Counsel’s continued participation in the case but was told 15 that the Receiver had “not decided whether the Receiver [would] participate in this case 16 or, if so, who [would] act as its counsel in that regard.” Dkt. # 28 at 1. 17 Counsel served copies of this motion on counsel for Plaintiff and the Receiver. Dkt. 18 # 28 at 4. Counsel also advised Halvorson and the Receiver that as a corporate entity, 19 Halvorson may not participate in this case without counsel and failure to obtain counsel 20 may result in a default judgment or dismissal. Dkt. # 28 at 4. Plaintiff objects, arguing 21 that withdrawal would prejudice Plaintiff because it would leave Halvorson 22 unrepresented and unable to respond to discovery requests and “keep [the] case moving.” 23 Dkt. # 32 at 3. 24 The Court finds that movants have shown good cause for leave to withdraw. 25 However, the court notes no substitute counsel has appeared in this matter for Halvorson. 26 “[A] corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.” 1 Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02 (1993). Accordingly, the 2 Court will give Halvorson the opportunity to obtain substitute counsel. The Court hereby 3 ORDERS: 4 1. Halvorson shall have new counsel enter an appearance on its behalf on or 5 before March 20, 2020. If Halvorson fails to have substitute counsel enter 6 an appearance by March 20, 2020, the Court may strike the answer and 7 claims of Halvorson and enter default. 8 2. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED pending appearance of new 9 counsel for Halvorson. Dkt. # 28. Moving counsel may withdraw only 10 upon appearance of new counsel for Halvorson, or after March 20, 2020, 11 whichever occurs first. 12 3. Moving counsel shall immediately serve a copy of this Order on Halvorson 13 and the Receiver and file a certificate of service with the Court. 14 15 DATED this 6th day of March, 2020. 16 17 A

18 19 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 20

21 22 23 24 25 26