United States District Court, D. Nevada
ROBERT G. GREENE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
JACOB TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC, a Nevada corporation dba Executive Las Vegas; JIM JIMMERSON, an individual; and CAROL JIMMERSON, an individual, Defendants.
P. LOVATO LOVATO LAW FIRM, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants
MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ASSOCIATED COUNSEL FOR
HOFFMAN, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Mario P. Lovato, Esq. hereby moves, pursuant to LR IA 11-6(b)
withdraw as counsel for Defendants in the above-referenced
case. Defendants have counsel in James J. Jimmerson, Esq. and
various associates at Jimmerson Law Firm who have represented
Defendants in the case since its inception, and who will
remain as counsel.
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
respectfully requests this Court to permit Mario P. Lovato
and Lovato Law Firm, P.C. to withdraw as counsel for
Defendants. Upon withdrawal, James J. Jimmerson, Esq. and
various associates at Jimmerson Law Firm will be remaining
counsel for Defendants.
Federal Rule IA 10-6(b) and (e) provide:
(b) No attorney may withdraw after appearing in a case except
by leave of the court after notice has been served on the
affected client and opposing counsel.
(e) Except for good cause shown, no withdrawal or
substitution will be approved if it will result in delay of
discovery, the trial, or any hearing in the case. Where delay
would result, the papers seeking leave of the court for the
withdrawal or substitution must request specific relief from
the scheduled discovery, trial, or hearing. If a trial
setting has been made, an additional copy of the moving
papers must be provided to the clerk for immediate delivery
to the assigned district judge, bankruptcy judge, or
Nevada Supreme Court rules governing Nevada attorneys contain
Supreme Court Rule 46(2) provides: “The attorney in an
action or special proceeding may be changed at any time
before judgment or final determination . . . [u]pon the order
of the court or judge thereof on the application of the
attorney or the client." Rule 166(2) of the Supreme
Court Rules states, in pertinent part:
2. Except as stated in subsection 3, a lawyer may withdraw
from representing a client if withdrawal can be accomplished
without material adverse effect on the interests of the
client, or if:
* * *
(d) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation
to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has
been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw
unless the obligation is fulfilled;
(e) the representation will result in an unreasonable
financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered
unreasonably difficult by the client; or
(f) other good cause for withdrawal exists.
J. Jimmerson and his associates have handled the defense of
this case as co-counsel from the date of its inception.
See Declaration of Mario P. Lovato, Esq., attached
as Exhibit 1.Mr. Jimmerson and his associates, including
recently hired associates Kevin Hejmanowski and James M.
Jimmerson (son of James J. Jimmerson), have handled recent
matters, including engaging in substantial discovery.
clients in this case have failed to honor their payment and
related obligations under the agreement between movant and
the clients. Movant has handled the defense of numerous wage
cases of the type being litigated herein to and through
conclusion, but the representation cannot be continued in
this case. The clients' failure to honor commitments has
been a growing issue in the retention and has resulted in
numerous direct meetings and other direct conversations
between movant and the clients in this case. It has
previously required movant to withdraw from representing the
client in similar litigation, which was granted by the Court
therein (Case No. 2:14-CV-1135 (see Dkt 76)); it has
required movant to decline representation in other wage
litigation matters requested by the client.
has been a breakdown in communication between movant and the
client. Prior to mid-February of this year, movant had been
in direct communication with Mr. Jimmerson, who was the
primary client representative directing the litigation, and
spoke numerous times with the client representative through
and to February 13, 2018. After such date, there has been a
breakdown in communication between movant and client.
Commencing on February 16, 2018, movant received numerous
email communications from the client representatives wherein,
rather than satisfying obligations to movant's firm, the
breakdown in attorney-client relationship was escalated and
increased to the point where this motion to withdraw must be
filed. Such emails from the client representatives revealed
the clients' failure to honor the obligations of the
retention, revealed dramatically inconsistent instructions on
how to proceed in the case, and contained incorrect
characterizations of the case and the dealings between
attorney and client.
recent weeks, movant has been unable to reach the primary
client representative to discuss the failure of clients to
satisfy the clients' obligations under the retention, and
to otherwise attempt to resolve matters. Numerous calls were
made by movant to discuss matters directly, which were
followed up via email communication. When arrangements were
actually made by movant with the client representative's
office for a telephone conference, the client representative
failed to ...