Vargo et al v. EVO Transportation & Energy Services, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
STEVEN VARGO et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. 	No. 1:24-cv-00301-SMD-LF
EVO TRANSPORTATION & ENERGY
SERVICES, INC. et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Withdraw as Counsel
(Doc. 93). The Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the District of New Mexico (“Local Rules”)
impose requirements for a motion to withdraw. See D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.8. Notably, the rules
require the moving attorney to “file and serve on all parties, including the client, a motion to
withdraw” and to “give notice in the motion that objections must be served and filed within
fourteen (14) days from date of service of the motion and that failure to object within this time
constitutes consent to grant the motion.” D.N.M.LR-Civ 83.8(b). Further, when the attorney
moving to withdraw represents a corporation, partnership, or business entity other than a natural
person, the motion “must include a notice that the corporation, partnership or business entity
other than a natural person can appear only with an attorney.” D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.8(c).
Defendants’ motion to withdraw is deficient in all of these requirements. There is no
indication that the motion was served on Defense Counsel’s clients, nor is there notice that any
objections must be served and filed within fourteen days of the date the motion is served.1 See
1 The motion does include a Certificate of Service indicating that the motion’s electronic filing
“caused all parties or counsel of record to be served by electronic means, as more fully reflected
on the Notice of Electronic Filing.” Doc. 93 at 4. The Notice of Electronic Filing reflects that
Case 1:24-cv-00301-SMD-LF Document 97 Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 2

2
D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.8(b). The motion also provides no notice that Defendants, as business
entities, can only appear in this case with an attorney. See D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.8(c).
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Withdraw as Counsel is
DENIED without prejudice for failure to comply with the Local Rules. Defendants may, within
fourteen days of the date of this order, file a motion that meets the requirements of Local Rule
83.8. Should Defendants file that motion, Plaintiffs will have fourteen days of the date of service
to file a response. See D.N.M.LR-Civ 7.4(a).2
Laura Fashing
United States Magistrate Judge
the motion was only electronically served on the attorneys of record and not the Defendants
directly.
2 Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendants’ motion on November 5, 2025 (Doc. 96). Should
Defendants file a new motion in compliance with Local Rule 83.8, Plaintiffs will need to file a
new response if they contest the motion.
Case 1:24-cv-00301-SMD-LF Document 97 Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 2