Sprinkler Fitters Local 704 Defined Contribution Fund v. Maverick Fire Protection, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan
DecidedSeptember 8, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-11845
StatusUnknown

This text of Sprinkler Fitters Local 704 Defined Contribution Fund v. Maverick Fire Protection, Inc. (Sprinkler Fitters Local 704 Defined Contribution Fund v. Maverick Fire Protection, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sprinkler Fitters Local 704 Defined Contribution Fund v. Maverick Fire Protection, Inc., (E.D. Mich. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

TRUSTEES OF SPRINKLER FITTERS LOCAL 704 DEFINED CONTRIBUTION FUND,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Case No. 23-11845 Honorable Linda V. Parker MAVERICK FIRE PROTECTION, INC. and SCOTT PENIVE,

Defendants. __________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW

Pending before the Court is a motion to withdraw filed by Defendants’ counsel in this matter: David W. Schelberg and McDonald Hopkins PLC. (ECF No. 8.) The stated reasons for counsel’s request to withdraw are irreconcilable differences and an unreasonable financial burden on counsel. Defense counsel represents that Defendants do not object to their withdrawal. The Court finds good cause for defense counsel to withdraw and that such withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on Defendants’ interests. See Mich. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.16. The Court is staying the proceedings for 45 days to allow Defendants to retain new counsel. As a corporate entity, Defendant Maverick Fire Protection, Inc. cannot proceed in this matter without an attorney. See, e.g., Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-202 (1993) (citing cases); Doherty v. American Motors Corp., 728 F.2d 334, 340 (6th

Cir.1984) (citations omitted). When a corporation declines to hire counsel to represent it, the court may properly dismiss its claims, if it is a plaintiff, or strike its defenses, if it is a defendant. Greater Southeast Cmty. Hosp. Found., Inc. v.

Potter, 586 F.3d 1, 5 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (citing Donovan v. Road Rangers Country Junction, Inc., 736 F.2d 1004, 1005 (5th Cir. 1984) and Strong Delivery Ministry Ass’n v. Bd. of Appeals of Cook Cnty., 543 F.2d 32, 33 (7th Cir. 1976)). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the counsel’s motion to withdraw (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED and David W. Schelberg and McDonald Hopkins PLC shall be terminated as counsel. Defendants’ counsel shall serve a copy of this Opinion and

Order on Defendants and must file a proof of service with the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is STAYED for 45 days to allow Defendants to retain new counsel, who shall file a written appearance on the docket before the 45 days expires.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ failure to retain counsel and for counsel to enter a written appearance within 45 days of this Opinion and Order will result in Defendant Maverick Fire Protection Inc.’s defenses being stricken without further notice of the Court, and the Court will conduct further proceedings in its absence in accordance with the law.

s/ Linda V. Parker LINDA V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: September 8, 2023

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sprinkler Fitters Local 704 Defined Contribution Fund v. Maverick Fire Protection, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sprinkler-fitters-local-704-defined-contribution-fund-v-maverick-fire-mied-2023.