Free Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Rilwala Group, Inc.; et al, 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On June 27, 2005, pursuant to the request of counsel, the Court substituted attorneys Schwab, Ralph and Schreeder in place of attorneys Michele Rocawich and Ariel Weissberg for the Rilwala Defendants. (See Doc. #137). As a result, attorneys Rocawich and Weissberg were terminated as counsel of record in this case. Attorney Schwab has now filed a motion for clarification seeking to have the docket in this action reflect that attorneys Schwab, Ralph, and Schreeder are counsel of record for the Rilwala Defendants only with respect to the Amit Patel and Anar Enterprises cross-claim and that attorneys Weissberg and Rocawich are to remain counsel of record for the Rilwala Defendants with respect to the Kahala complaint and counterclaim. This clarification will be granted. Even in light of this clarification, the Court still finds the Amit Patel and Anar Enterprises motion to disqualify Mr. Weissberg to be moot. Only Amit Patel and Anar Enterprises sought to disqualify Mr. Weissberg (not the Kahala plaintiffs) and they sought
Case 2:03-cv-02160-JAT Document 163 Filed 09/02/2005 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kahala Corp.; et al, Plaintiffs, vs.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV-03-2160-PHX JAT ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

to disqualify Mr. Weissberg only with respect to the cross-claim (and in-fact Amit Patel is a defendant with respect to the Kahala Complaint). Mr. Weissberg (and his firm) will not be representing the Rilwala Defendants with respect to the cross-claim, so the relief sought in the motion to disqualify has been obtained. Plaintiffs continue to allege serious discovery abuses on the part of the Rilwala Defendants. On August 24, 2005, the Kahala Plaintiffs filed a motion to expedite their current pending sanctions motions for discovery abuses. The Court ordered the Rilwala Defendants to respond by August 29, 2005. On August 29, 2005, a response was filed by Mr. Schwab. However, Mr. Schwab has made clear in his motion to clarify and on the record in a hearing on a discovery dispute on August 29, 2005, that he is representing the Rilwala Defendants only with respect to the counterclaim. The Court is unclear to what extent the need for "clarification" caused Mr. Schwab to file this response instead of Mr. Weissberg. However, since Mr. Schwab is not representing the Rilwala Defendants with respect to the Kahala complaint, the Response is ineffective. As a result, Mr. Weissberg will be required to respond to the motion because it was filed by the Kahala Plaintiffs. Mr. Weissberg is advised that the Court is entertaining very serious sanctions, including the dismissal of the counterclaim, and striking the answer, and, therefore, should respond specifically to each allegation of the motion. Further, due to the unacceptable delay in discovery in this case, Mr. Weissberg shall respond no later than 8:00a.m., Arizona time, on Tuesday, September 6, 2005. Finally, on August 31, 2005, Mr. Schwab filed a Notice of Filing Second Declaration by Rilwala Group which attaches a Declaration of Mr. Weissberg in support of the response to Plaintiffs' Request to Extend Discovery Deadlines. There is no motion to extend discovery pending. The Court does not know to what this declaration purports to be responding. Nonetheless, counsel is advised that ONE response to a motion is permitted. Multiple "notices" which the Court is supposed to attach to a response is unacceptable. Therefore, for all future purposes, counsel is advised that the Court will NOT review any "notice" that is not attached to the original motion, response, or reply. -2Case 2:03-cv-02160-JAT Document 163 Filed 09/02/2005 Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Correct the Docket (Doc. #155) is granted to the extent that the docket shall reflect that counsel of record for the Rilwala Defendants for purposes of the cross-claim of Amit Patel and Anar Enterprises is attorneys Schwab, Ralph and Schreeder; counsel for the Rilwala Defendants on the Kahala complaint and counterclaim is Michele Rocawich and Ariel Weissberg; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Rocawich or Mr. Weissberg shall file a response to the Kahala Plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite Currently Pending Motions (Doc. #156) by September 6, 2005, at 8:00 a.m. Arizona time; any response previously filed by Mr. Schwab will be disregarded; a failure to file a substantive response shall be deemed consent to the motion being granted pursuant to Arizona Local Rule Civil 7.2(i) and shall further be deemed a failure to prosecute and a failure to comply with a Court order under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ignacia Maramba's Motion to Withdraw as counsel for the Rilwala Defendants (Doc. #149) is granted; Mr. Maramba shall be terminated from this action. DATED this 1st day of September, 2005.

-3Case 2:03-cv-02160-JAT Document 163 Filed 09/02/2005 Page 3 of 3