UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

ROGER DOWN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No: 8:24-CV-02493-WFJ-AAS

ROBERT RAY HOLCOMB, et al.

Defendants. ____________________________________/

ORDER Attorneys Jessica S. Mazariego, Jacob A. Guariglia, and Jimerson Birr P.A. (collectively, defense counsel) request to withdraw as counsel for Defendants Robert Ray Holcomb, Ellen Sue Holcomb, Holcomb Power, LLC, and Holcomb Energy Systems, LLC (collectively, the defendants). (Doc. 47). This request is opposed by the defendants and the plaintiffs’ counsel. (Docs. 45, 49). Defense counsel represents that “irreconcilable differences” have arisen, making it impossible for defense counsel to effectively further represent the defendants here. (Doc. 47, p. 1). The Local Rules for the Middle District of Florida state, “[i]f a lawyer appears, the lawyer cannot without leave of court abandon, or withdraw from, the action.” Local Rule 2.02(c), M.D. Fla. The court is afforded discretion to grant an attorney’s motion to withdraw in some cases. Patnaude v. Sears Pest Control, Inc., No. 08-61980-CIV- ZLOCH/ROSENBAUM,

, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 13, 2009).

“Before granting an attorney’s motion to withdraw, however, ‘it is incumbent on the court to assure that the prosecution of the lawsuit before it is not disrupted by the withdrawal of counsel, and that the withdrawal of counsel is for good cause.’”

(quoting Mekdeci v. Merrell Nat’l Laboratories,

, 1521–22 (11th Cir. 1983)). Defense counsel failed to demonstrate good cause for withdrawal. The motion merely states that counsel cannot continue to represent the defendants adequately but proffers no additional information. See Innovative Genetics,

LLC v. Flavocure Biotech, LLC, No. 21-21457-CV,

, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 10, 2023) (“Plaintiff's Counsel state that ‘irreconcilable differences’ arose between them and Plaintiff without providing any additional details. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Counsel has failed to demonstrate good cause

for their requested withdrawal.”). In addition, defense counsel states that withdrawal would not prejudice any party but offers no support for that assertion. Further, because Holcomb Power, LLC, and Holcomb Energy Systems, LLC are limited liability companies, they must be represented by

counsel. See Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp.,

(11th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, upon review of the motion, the record, and applicable law, it is ORDERED that defense counsel’s motion to withdraw (Doc. 47) is DENIED without prejudice. The defendants’ motion to oppose the withdrawal of counsel (Doc. 45) is moot. ENTERED in Tampa, Florida, on June 5, 2025. Aranda. □□□ Sasone_ AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE United States Magistrate Judge