Veritas AG v. General Motors LLC

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan
DecidedMay 9, 2024
Docket2:23-cv-13312
StatusUnknown

This text of Veritas AG v. General Motors LLC (Veritas AG v. General Motors LLC) 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
Veritas AG v. General Motors LLC, (E.D. Mich. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

VERITAS AG and VERITAS THURINGEN GMBH,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:23-cv-13312

v. Honorable Susan K. DeClercq United States District Judge GENERAL MOTORS LLC,

Defendants. ______________________________________/ ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

Plaintiffs’ counsel, the Miller Law Firm, “represents and certifies to the Court that good grounds for withdrawal exist under one or more of the grounds specified in Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16.” ECF No. 18 at PageID.414. Upon review, the motion to withdraw will be granted. This, however, leaves Plaintiffs as a German corporation and a German LLC proceeding in federal court without an attorney, which is not permitted. Olagues v. Timken, 908 F.3d 200, 203 (6th Cir. 2018) (“[U]nder longstanding tradition, a corporation can only appear by an attorney.” (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Bass v. Leatherwood, 788 F.3d 228, 230 (6th Cir. 2015))); accord SEC v. Merklinger, 489 F. App’x 937, 939–40 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Taylor Steel, Inc. v. Keeton, 417 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2005)). Plaintiffs must retain new counsel to continue.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw, ECF No. 18, is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that it seeks withdrawal of counsel and DENIED IN PART in all other respects.

Further, it is ORDERED that, on or before May 31, 2024, Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to have new counsel file an appearance in the case or to show cause in writing why the case should not be dismissed for lack of attorney representation. If Plaintiffs fail their obligations, the case will be dismissed under Civil Rule 41(b).

Further, it is ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference currently set for May 21, 2024, at 10:30 AM ET is CANCELED. It will be rescheduled following Plaintiff’s response to the Order to Show Cause.

Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ current counsel is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on Plaintiffs in full compliance with Civil Rule 4(h) and Michigan Court Rule 2.105(D). Further, it is ORDERED that the Miller Law Firm is WITHDRAWN as

Plaintiffs’ counsel and will no longer receive notifications for this case. This order does not close the above-captioned case.

Dated: 4/9/2024 /s/Susan K. DeClercq SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ United States District Judge

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

Related

Taylor Steel, Inc. v. Lana C. Keeton
417 F.3d 598 (Sixth Circuit, 2005)
Myron Bass v. Tom Leatherwood
788 F.3d 228 (Sixth Circuit, 2015)
John Olagues v. Ward Timken, Jr.
908 F.3d 200 (Sixth Circuit, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Veritas AG v. General Motors LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/veritas-ag-v-general-motors-llc-mied-2024.