Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bradley v. Davis

January 19, 2006

TINA BRADLEY PLAINTIFF
v.
GARY DAVIS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS



ORDER

Pending before the Court is the motion of Rickey Hicks for leave to withdraw as counsel and defendant ConAgra 's motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. Hicks was appointed to represent plaintiff on October 4, 2005. ConAgra has unsuccessfully attempted to arrange with Hicks to take plaintiff's deposition. ConAgra also states that plaintiff has failed to provide Initial Disclosures or to respond to ConAgra's discovery requests.

In his motion to withdraw Hicks states that he does not have the time or financial resources to actively pursue this case. Local Rule 83.7 governs the appointment of counsel. The time to request leave to withdraw has passed and the reasons asserted by Hicks are not valid ones under the Local Rule for seeking withdrawal. Hicks can apply for reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, such as deposition costs, pursuant to Local Rule 83.6. He has not indicated why he does not have the time to work on this case.

The Court is reluctant to saddle plaintiff with an attorney who is unwilling to diligently prosecute her case. Nevertheless, Hicks is an experienced civil rights attorney who should be able to adequately represent plaintiff in this action. Thus, the Court denies the motion for leave to withdraw. Furthermore, the Court will not dismiss the case for lack of prosecution based on counsel's lack of diligence. Rather, plaintiff's counsel is directed to respond to the discovery requests within 20 days of the date of this order and to arrange for ConAgra to take plaintiff's deposition.

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw and the motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of January, 2006.

20060119

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.