1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 HILLCREST INVESTMENTS. LTD., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00964-RFB-NJK

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER

9 v.

10 AMERICAN BORATE COMPANY, et al.,

11 Defendants.

12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Before the Court is Byron E. Thomas, Esq. for Plaintiff Amergosa Enterprise, LLC’s 15 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. ECF No. 91. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Amergosa’s 16 counsel’s motion is granted. 17 II. BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Fifth Judicial District Nye County on December 20, 19 2020. ECF No. 1-1. The federal defendants removed this action on May 19, 2021. ECF No. 1. The 20 Nevada State defendants (State Engineer, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural 21 Resources, Division of Water Resources) filed a motion to dismiss on May 26, 2021. ECF No. 5. 22 Plaintiffs responded on June 14, 2021. ECF No. 12. Defendants replied on June 21, 2021. ECF 23 No. 15. 24 The American Borate Defendants (American Borate Co., American Borate Co. of Texas) 25 filed a motion to dismiss on June 4, 2021. ECF No. 7. Plaintiffs responded on July 1, 2021. ECF 26 No. 22. Defendants replied on July 7, 2021. ECF No. 25. The federal defendants (NPS, US Fish 27 and Wildlife Service) filed a motion to dismiss on June 21, 2021. ECF No. 17. Plaintiffs responded 28 on July 28, 2021. ECF No. 37. Defendants replied on August 13, 2021. ECF No. 42. 1 On March 17, 2022, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims against all defendants but gave 2 Plaintiffs until May 16, 2022 to file a motion for reconsideration, or the case would be dismissed 3 with prejudice and closed. ECF No. 48. 4 On May 16, 2022, Plaintiffs, through their attorney Byron Thomas, Esq., filed a Motion to 5 Reconsider Dismissal With Prejudice of the American Borate Defendant[s] (“Motion to 6 Reconsider”). ECF No. 49. On May 31, 2022, the American Borate Defendants filed their 7 opposition to the Motion to Reconsider. ECF No. 57. Between September 9, 2022 and January 18, 8 2023, Hillcrest—through Karen Hanks, Esq.—requested additional extensions of time to file an 9 opposition to the Renewed Motion for Sanctions but not a reply in support of its Motion to 10 Reconsider. ECF Nos. 84, 89, 93, 95. Amergosa—through Thomas—requested additional 11 extensions of time to respond to the Renewed Motion for Sanctions and file a reply in support of 12 its Motion to Reconsider. ECF Nos. 80, 85, 90, 98, 104. 13 In addition to their Motion to Reconsider, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 16, 14 2022, which was docketed in the Ninth Circuit as Case No. 22-15751. ECF Nos. 50, 51. Thomas 15 filed the appeal on Plaintiffs’ behalf, and the appeal was dismissed on October 11, 2023 for failure 16 to prosecute. See No. 22-15751.1 17 On September 2, 2022, Hillcrest substituted Hanks as counsel in Thomas’s place. ECF 18 Nos. 77, 82. 19 On October 14, 2022, Thomas filed the instant First Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for 20 Amergosa. ECF No. 91. Amergosa filed no response. 21 On March 22, 2023, Hillcrest and the American Borate Defendants filed a Stipulation and 22 Order for Dismissal with Prejudice. ECF No. 110. It provided the following: (1) Hillcrest’s Motion 23 for Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice of the American Borate Defendants re Minutes of 24 Proceedings (ECF No. 49) was withdrawn; (2) American Borate’s Renewed Motion for Sanctions 25 (ECF No. 64) was withdrawn as against Hillcrest and non-party Byron Thomas only, but it would 26 remain pending against Amergosa who was not a party to the settlement; and (3) Hillcrest’s claims 27 28 1 It appears Thomas was terminated as Plaintiffs’ counsel in the appeal on July 13, 2023. No. 22-15751, ECF No. 25. 1 against American Borate were dismissed with prejudice. ECF No. 110. The Court granted the 2 stipulation, except that it denied the request to leave the Renewed Motion for Sanctions pending. 3 Instead, it denied the motion without prejudice to refiling the motion against Amergosa. ECF No. 4 111. On May 11, 2023, the Ninth Circuit issued an order granting appellant Hillcrest’s stipulated 5 motion for voluntary dismissal of the appeal as to appellee American Borate Company. ECF No. 6 113. On October 11, 2023, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute. ECF 7 No. 114. 8 The Court now addresses the Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. 9 III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY 10 a. Legal Standard 11 Under the Local Rules of Practice for the District Nevada, an attorney seeking to withdraw 12 after appearing in a case “must file a motion or stipulation and serve it on the affected client and 13 opposing counsel.” Local Rule IA 11-6(b). Leave of the Court is required for an attorney to 14 withdraw from a case, and district courts are given considerable deference in making that decision. 15 See id.; see also LaGrand v. Stewart,

(9th Cir. 1998). 16 “Except for good cause shown, no withdrawal or substitution will be approved if it will 17 result in delay of discovery, the trial, or any hearing in the case. Where delay would result, the 18 papers seeking leave of the court for the withdrawal or substitution must request specific relief 19 from the scheduled discovery, trial, or hearing.” Local Rule IA 11-6(e). 20 b. Discussion 21 Thomas, Plaintiff Amergosa’s counsel, seeks to withdraw from this matter due to 22 Amergosa’s failure to communicate with him despite repeated requests for communication, and 23 they have been warned of his intent to withdraw to no avail. Plaintiff’s counsel states that notice 24 of this motion was provided to Amergosa Enterprises via United States mail and via e-mail, and 25 to all counsel via the Court’s electronic mail system. Further, the Court has disposed of the material 26 dispute, and Amergosa was aware of any pending motions. Thus, withdrawal can be accomplished 27 without material adverse effects to Amergosa. 28 The Court finds there is good cause to grant the motion. Amergosa did not file a response to the Motion to Withdraw, and, other than the pending motion for reconsideration addressed above, there are no other pending motions in this case. Thus, the Court does not find that 3 | withdrawal will cause delay of any discovery, a trial, or hearing in the case. 4 Amergosa, however, cannot proceed pro se in this action as limited liability corporations 5 | may only appear in federal court through licensed counsel. See Rowland v. California Men’s Colony,

(1993). As the case will now be closed with the withdrawal of the 7 | Motion to Reconsider, the Court will not require Amergosa to retain new counsel or file a notice 8 | of appearance. 9 Thus, Thomas’s motion to withdraw as counsel is granted. 10 1] IV. CONCLUSION 12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the First Motion to Withdraw as Attorney by Byron E. 13 | Thomas, Esq. for Plaintiff Amergosa Enterprise, LLC (ECF No. 91) is GRANTED. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. 15 The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close this case. 16 17 DATED: March 28, 2024 18 mea 1

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-