Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Virginic LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING
VIRGIN ENTERPRISES LIMITED,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 2:19-CV-220-NDF
VIRGINIC LLC, VIRGINIC LABS LLC,
VIRGINIC PL SP. Z O O., PARAMOUNT
LABS 77 LLC, AND BERENIKA
MACIEJEWICZ
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW [Doc. 74]
This matter is before the Court on counsel for Defendants Motion to Withdraw as
counsel. (ECF No. 74). Plaintiffs raise concerns that withdrawal is inappropriate and premature
because of noncompliance with the Consent Judgment. (ECF No. 75). The Court finds that
because Defendants discharged counsel in this matter, the Motion should be granted.
BACKGROUND
On August 26, 2020 the Honorable Nancy D. Freudenthal Ordered a Consent Judgment
in this case. (ECF No. 72). All parties agreed and consented to its terms. On September 25,
2020 counsel for Defendants, Clyde Hutchins and Melissa Theriault of Harmony Law, LLC,
filed a Motion to Withdraw as counsel of record. (ECF No. 74). In their Motion, counsel
specified that all actions in the matter were completed following the consent judgment, that
Defendants terminated the representation of Harmony Law, LLC, and counsel gave actual
notice to the clients prior to filing the Motion to Withdraw. A “Consent to Withdrawal of
FILED
U.S. Magistrate Judge
12:52 pm, 11/9/20
Case 2:19-cv-00220-NDF Document 77 Filed 11/09/20 Page 1 of 5

2
Counsel” for all three defendants was also attached to the Motion. (ECF No. 74 at attachs. 1–
3). The consent forms recognized Defendants terminated the services of Harmony Law, LLC
and its attorneys, Clyde Hutchins and Melissa Theriault.
In Response, Plaintiff argues that the Motion to Withdraw should be denied because
counsel for Defendants failed to confer and gain consent prior to filing their motion. (ECF No.
75). Additionally, Plaintiff argues withdrawal is premature and inappropriate because it is
unclear whether Defendants are complying with the Consent Judgment and Settlement
Agreement.
R ELEVANT L AW
Motion to Withdraw
Local Rule 84.3 provides in part,
b) Withdrawal of Appearance.
An attorney who has filed a notice of appearance in any
case may, with Court permission, withdraw for good
cause. An attorney seeking withdrawal shall be relieved of
duties to the Court, the client and opposing counsel, only
upon completion of the following:
(1) 	filing 	of 	a 	motion 	seeking 	leave 	to 	withdraw,
specifying the reasons therefor, unless to do so would
violate 	the 	Code 	of 	Professional 	Responsibility, 	and
whether opposing counsel objects, and service of a notice
of withdrawal on his client and other counsel. Notice to
the attorney's client must contain the admonition that the
client is personally responsible for complying with all
deadlines and orders of this Court and time limitations of
the Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and
(2) the filing of a notice of withdrawal, proof of service to
the client and the written consent of the client to the
withdrawal; or the filing of an entry of appearance on
behalf 	of 	the 	client 	by 	a 	substitute 	attorney 	and 	a
representation that the client consents. If the client has not
consented to withdrawal, the motion shall be set for
hearing before the Court.
Upon completion of these requirements the Court may
enter an order authorizing withdrawal. Until such order is
Case 2:19-cv-00220-NDF Document 77 Filed 11/09/20 Page 2 of 5

3
entered, 	counsel 	shall 	have 	continuing 	duties 	of
representation to the Court, client and opposing counsel.
Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law
Rule 1.16 of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law
provides in part, “a lawyer shall not represent a client, or where representation has commenced,
shall withdraw from the representation if: … (3) the lawyer is discharged.”
D ISCUSSION
Under Local Rule 84.3, counsel for Defendants was not required to obtain consent from
opposing counsel prior to filing their Motion to Withdraw. However, counsel was required to
state whether opposing counsel objected. It appears counsel for Defendants attempted to
communicate with Plaintiff but did not wait for a response before filing the Motion to
Withdraw. Consequently, counsel for Defendants did not state whether Plaintiff objected.
While counsel’s conduct violated the Local Rules, Plaintiff was still able to timely object, and
the Court has considered those objections. The Court will now decide the issue on the merits
rather than this procedural failing.
The Court grants the Motion to Withdraw because Defendants have discharged
Harmony Law, LLC and its attorneys. “A client has a right to discharge a lawyer at any time,
with or without cause, subject to liability for payment for the lawyer's services.” M ODEL RULES
OF P ROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 1.16 (Comment 4). Under the Wyoming Rules of Professional
Conduct, counsel shall not represent a client after they are discharged. Here, counsel for
Defendants properly filed a motion seeking leave to withdraw after being discharged by
Defendants. While Plaintiff may have valid concerns about the Defendants’ compliance with
the Consent Judgment, Plaintiff can handle post judgment issues directly with the defendants
Case 2:19-cv-00220-NDF Document 77 Filed 11/09/20 Page 3 of 5

4
or their new counsel. Further, Harmony LLC and its attorneys are no longer authorized to
engage with Plaintiff on behalf of the defendants.
Local Rule 84.3 also states that “[n]otice to the attorney's client must contain the
admonition that the client is personally responsible for complying with all deadlines and orders
of this Court and time limitations of the Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
To ensure that Plaintiff will be able to resolve their concerns with Defendants directly, the
Court Orders counsel to advise Defendants they will remain personally responsible for
complying with the Court’s August 26, 2020 Consent Judgment, and must obtain new counsel
for any further dealings with the Court as corporations must be represented by licensed
counsel. See e.g., United States v. Lain, 733 Fed. Appx. 476, 477 (2019) (citing Rowland v.
Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202, 113 S. Ct. 716, 121
L. Ed. 656 (1993) (noting the longstanding rule that corporations must be represented by
licensed counsel)).
CONCLUSION
This Court may enter an order authorizing withdrawal of counsel upon a showing of
good cause. See Local Rule 84.3. 	The Court finds counsel has shown good cause for the
request to withdraw. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw as counsel (ECF No. 74) is
GRANTED.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the withdrawal of Clyde Hutchins, Melissa Theriault,
and Harmony Law, LLC, as attorneys of record for Defendants Virginic LLC, Virginic Labs
LLC, and Paramount Labs 77 LLC is hereby approved.
Case 2:19-cv-00220-NDF Document 77 Filed 11/09/20 Page 4 of 5

5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that attorneys of record for Defendants will first advise
Defendants they remain personally responsible for complying with the Court’s Consent
Judgment (ECF. No. 72) and must obtain new counsel for any further dealings with the Court.
Dated this 9th day of November, 2020.
Kelly H. Rankin
United States Magistrate Judge
ll 	H R 	ki
Case 2:19-cv-00220-NDF Document 77 Filed 11/09/20 Page 5 of 5