Mobilization Funding, LLC v. Halvorson Construction Group, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE MOBILIZATION FUNDING, LLC, a Case No. 2:18-cv-01412-RAJ South Carolina limited liability company, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 Plaintiff, WITHDRAW v. HALVORSON CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC; a Washington limited liability company; and CEC ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, 17 Defendants.

HALVORSON CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC; a Washington limited liability company, Third Party Plaintiff, v. JOHN and JANE DOE CHASE, individually and the marital community comprised thereof, Third Party Defendants.

1 This matter is before the Court on counsel for Defendant Halvorson Construction Group, LLC’s (“Halvorson”) motion to withdraw. Dkt. # 28. Plaintiff Mobilization Funding (“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion. Dkt. # 32.

4 On August 19, 2019, HCG petitioned King County Superior Court for the appointment of a general receiver. The petition was granted and on August 20, 2019, the King County Superior Court entered an order appointing a Receiver for Halvorson. Dkt.

7 # 26-1. Halvorson subsequently assigned all of its assets to the Receiver. Dkt. # 26-1.

8 Counsel for Halvorson, Garth A. Schlemlein, Brian K. Keeley, and the law firm of Schlemlein Fick & Scruggs PLLC (“Counsel”) now moves to withdraw as counsel in this matter under Local Rule 83.2(b)(1). Dkt. # 28.

11 Counsel argues that good cause exists to allow withdrawal because, due to the appointment of a Receiver, Halvorson has undergone a change in who effectively controls and directs its decisions. Dkt. # 28 at 3. Counsel attempted to obtain clarity from the Receiver regarding Counsel’s continued participation in the case but was told that the Receiver had “not decided whether the Receiver [would] participate in this case or, if so, who [would] act as its counsel in that regard.” Dkt. # 28 at 1.

17 Counsel served copies of this motion on counsel for Plaintiff and the Receiver. Dkt.

18 # 28 at 4. Counsel also advised Halvorson and the Receiver that as a corporate entity, Halvorson may not participate in this case without counsel and failure to obtain counsel may result in a default judgment or dismissal. Dkt. # 28 at 4. Plaintiff objects, arguing that withdrawal would prejudice Plaintiff because it would leave Halvorson unrepresented and unable to respond to discovery requests and “keep [the] case moving.”

23 Dkt. # 32 at 3.

24 The Court finds that movants have shown good cause for leave to withdraw.

25 However, the court notes no substitute counsel has appeared in this matter for Halvorson.

26 “[A] corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.”

1 Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02 (1993). Accordingly, the Court will give Halvorson the opportunity to obtain substitute counsel. The Court hereby ORDERS: 4 1. Halvorson shall have new counsel enter an appearance on its behalf on or 5 before March 20, 2020. If Halvorson fails to have substitute counsel enter 6 an appearance by March 20, 2020, the Court may strike the answer and 7 claims of Halvorson and enter default.

8 2. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED pending appearance of new 9 counsel for Halvorson. Dkt. # 28. Moving counsel may withdraw only 10 upon appearance of new counsel for Halvorson, or after March 20, 2020, 11 whichever occurs first.

12 3. Moving counsel shall immediately serve a copy of this Order on Halvorson 13 and the Receiver and file a certificate of service with the Court.

15 DATED this 6th day of March, 2020.

17 A 19 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge