Hines v. EMI April Music Inc.

Background

The court held a telephone conference about the motion at Docket No. 200. Hines’s attorney, Andrew Williams, did not appear, although the court had ordered him to attend. On January 3, 2023, Hines wrote directly to the court and defense counsel that he no longer wished to be represented by Williams. Hines requested 60 days to find new counsel and file his opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Williams separately told the court that he had been on track to meet the opposition deadline but believed he no longer had authority to file the opposition because Hines had ended the representation. Williams requested permission to withdraw and asked the court to stay the case so Hines could find new counsel and file the overdue opposition.

Court’s analysis

The court treated Hines’s and Williams’s letters together as a request for permission for Williams to withdraw. The court said permission for an attorney to withdraw is within the trial court’s discretion. It found that neither request complied with Local Civil Rule 1.4 or the court’s individual practice rules, which required such requests to be received at least 48 hours before a deadline. The court also found that Hines and Williams had not shown good cause for withdrawal.

The court additionally considered the case’s nearly four-year history, including delays requested by Hines or his counsel. It noted that the opposition deadline had already been extended several times and that the original deadline was November 18, 2022. The court also stated that Hines’s potential recovery was likely to be quite limited compared with the length of the discovery and other proceedings.

Rulings

The request to allow Williams to withdraw as counsel was denied. The request for another extension or a stay to allow Hines to obtain new counsel was also denied. The court stated that Williams remained Hines’s counsel at that time. Hines could file a letter if he wanted new counsel to appear or wanted to proceed without a lawyer, but existing deadlines would remain unless he showed extraordinary circumstances.

The request to extend the deadline for opposing the defendants’ summary-judgment motion was granted in part and denied in part. The court ordered that Hines’s opposition be submitted by January 13, 2023, whether filed without a lawyer or by Williams. Otherwise, the defendants’ summary-judgment motion would be considered fully submitted and unopposed. The court directed Williams to send Hines a copy of the order by email and mail and directed the clerk to close the motion at Docket No. 200.