GS Holistic, LLC v. Best Budz Smoke Shop LLC et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS
GS HOLISTIC, LLC.,
Plaintiff, 	: 	Case Nos. 	2:23-cv-03234
2:23-cv-03578
2:23-cv-03601
District Judge Walter H. Rice
- 	vs - 	Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
LAYLAS HOOKAH LOUNGE LLC, et al.,
Defendants. 	:
***
GS HOLISTIC, LLC.,
Plaintiff,
- 	vs –
GOODFELLAS SMOKE SHOP LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
***
GS HOLISTIC, LLC.,
Plaintiff,
- 	vs -
BEST BUDZ SMOKE SHOP LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case: 2:23-cv-03601-WHR Doc #: 66 Filed: 03/18/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
ORDER
In each of the above-captioned cases, Attorneys Jeffrey S. Standley and F. Michael Speed,
Jr., have moved to withdraw as trial attorneys for Defendants pursuant to S. D. Ohio Civ. R.
83.4(b). In each they assert that “circumstances have arisen” which prevent them from continuing
to represent Defendants, but do not explain what those circumstances are, although they assert
there is good cause under the Rules of Professional Conduct requiring them to withdraw. In none
of the cases do they offer the name of a substitute trial attorney or indicate they have sought the
consent of Plaintiff’s counsel to these motions.
Although these cases and all others in this District in which GS Holistics is plaintiff have
been assigned to District Judge Walter H. Rice and referred to the undersigned by then-Chief Judge
Marbley, Judge Rice has for the most part handled case management. However, he has expressly
directed the undersigned to deal with these motions to withdraw. Motions to withdraw are non-
dispositive matters within the initial decisional authority of a Magistrate Judge.
S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 83.4 provides:
83.4 Designation of Trial Attorney; Withdrawal or Substitution of Counsel
(a) Designation of Trial Attorney. Unless otherwise ordered, in all
actions filed in, transferred to, or removed to this Court, all parties
other than pro se parties must be represented at all times by a Trial
Attorney” who is a permanent member in good standing of the bar
of this Court. Each filing made on behalf of such parties shall
identify and be signed by the Trial Attorney. The Trial Attorney
shall attend all hearings, conferences, and the trial itself unless
excused by the Court from doing so. Admission pro hac vice does
not entitle an attorney to appear as a party’s Trial Attorney, but the
Court may, in its discretion and upon motion that shows good cause,
permit an attorney who has been so admitted to act as the Trial
Attorney.
Case: 2:23-cv-03601-WHR Doc #: 66 Filed: 03/18/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
(b) Withdrawal or Substitution of Counsel of Record. No
attorney of record may withdraw, nor may any other attorney file an
appearance as a substitute for an attorney of record without first: (i)
providing written notice to the client, to all counsel including the
withdrawing 	attorney 	and 	any 	unrepresented 	parties, 	and 	(ii)
obtaining leave of Court. However, attorneys from the same firm or
governmental agency may file and serve a notice of appearance or
substitution for an attorney of record without obtaining leave of
Court.
There are a number of departures from S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 83.4 evident from the Motions
to Withdraw. 	First of all, S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 83.4 speaks in the singular of a “trial attorney.”
Nothing in the Rule permits multiple attorneys to fill that role.
Secondly, the Motions show notice to the clients and to opposing counsel, but not the
consent of any of them. S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.3 requires that a party seek the consent of opposing
parties when presenting a motion to which the opponent might reasonably be expected to consent.
Third, at least some of the Defendants appear to be corporations which may not appear in
federal court except through a licensed attorney admitted to practice before this Court, but none of
the Motions proposed a substitute.
Finally Messrs. Speed and Standley assert good cause to withdraw in completely
conclusory fashion. 	They have offered “If this Court requires additional information, counsel
could submit the information for the Court’s in camera review.” The Court understands the need
to protect the attorney-client privilege and for that reason will allow Messrs. Speed and Standley
to submit any additional information they wish the Magistrate Judge to consider in support of their
Motions under seal not later than March 31, 2026. In any such filing they should indicate their
understanding of S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 83.4 as noted above and their intention to comply or any
disagreement with the Magistrate Judge’s reading of the Rule.
Case: 2:23-cv-03601-WHR Doc #: 66 Filed: 03/18/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 18, 2026.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 2:23-cv-03601-WHR Doc #: 66 Filed: 03/18/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>