Plummer v. McSweeny

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas
DecidedMay 6, 2021
Docket4:18-cv-00063
StatusUnknown

This text of Plummer v. McSweeny (Plummer v. McSweeny) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Plummer v. McSweeny, (E.D. Ark. 2021).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

JERRI PLUMMER PLAINTIFF

VS. CASE NO.: 4:18-CV-63-JM

RHETT MCSWEENEY et al DEFENDANTS

ORDER On March 22, 2021, the Court entered an order taking under advisement the motion filed by Brian A. Vandiver and Dylan J. Botteicher to be allowed to withdraw as counsel for Defendant Women’s Health and Surgery Center, LLC (“WHSC”). (Doc. No. 133). The order gave thirty days to allow WHSC to secure substitute counsel. Brian Vandiver has filed a certificate of service showing that he sent the Court’s order to his client via certified mail and email. (Doc. No. 139). WHSC was warned that if it failed to secure substitute counsel by April 21, 2021, the Court would grant the motion to withdraw and leave WHSC subject to having a default judgment entered against it. The time has passed, and no other counsel has filed an entry of appearance for WHSC Therefore, the motion to withdraw is granted. As advised in the Court’s previous order, the withdrawal of its counsel leaves WHSC technically in default as a corporation cannot represent itself. Ackra Direct Marketing Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 1996); U.S. v. Van Stelton, 988 F.2d 70 (8th Cir. 1993). Furthermore, Plaintiff has filed a motion for sanctions against WHSC (Doc. No .135) for its failure to comply with the Court’s order (Doc. No. 131) compelling it to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery by January 28, 2021. Discovery responses have not been provided to date. The only communication the Court has had from WHSC is from its lawyers seeking withdrawal on the grounds that they were terminated by their client and have an ethical conflict that keeps them from further representing WHSC. For the reasons stated above, the motion for sanctions is granted, and the Court is striking the answer of WHSC and finding them in default. Damages will be determined at a later date on motion by Plaintiff. Conclusion The motion of Brian A. Vandiver and Dylan J. Botteicher to be allowed to withdraw as counsel of record for WHSC (Docket No. 133) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions against WHSC (Docket No. 135) is GRANTED, and this defendant is now in default. The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order on WHSC by mailing a copy to Mr. Vikram Saini, 483 North Semoran Blvd. Suite 205, Winter Park, FL and by sending it electronically to 32702vsaini@floridaaco.com. IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of May, 2021.

United States District Judge

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Plummer v. McSweeny, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plummer-v-mcsweeny-ared-2021.