National Roofing Industry Pension Plan v. Taylor Roofing Solutions, Inc.
4:18-cv-01862
E.D. Mo.Jul 26, 2019Background
- Plaintiffs (multiemployer benefit plans) sued several defendants, including Taylor Roofing entities and individuals, to collect alleged fringe-benefit contributions and to confirm an arbitration award under ERISA and the LMRA; Second Amended Complaint filed April 5, 2019.
- Heyl, Royster entered appearances for all defendants on January 9, 2019, and filed a partial motion to dismiss; defendants answered April 18, 2019.
- Heyl, Royster sought to withdraw after defendants failed to pay multiple invoices despite an engagement letter permitting termination for nonpayment; initial notice filed June 11, 2019, supplemented June 13, 2019.
- Court deferred the initial motion to withdraw and set a case management schedule. Heyl, Royster filed a second supplemental motion July 23, 2019, requesting a 45-day withdrawal-notice period to allow substitution of counsel or risk default.
- The court held the withdrawal motions in abeyance, ordered defendants to obtain substitute counsel and have counsel file appearances by September 9, 2019, warned that corporate defendants cannot proceed pro se and may face default if they fail to retain counsel, and stated it would grant the withdrawal on substitute counsel’s entry or on September 10, 2019.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel may withdraw when clients breach fee agreement | Plaintiffs emphasized timely prosecution of claims and risk of prejudice/delay if defendants unrepresented | Heyl, Royster asserted nonpayment of fees justified withdrawal and requested a 45-day notice to secure new counsel | Court held withdrawal motions in abeyance and conditioned withdrawal on substitute counsel entry or set date (Sept 10, 2019) |
| Whether corporate defendants may proceed pro se after counsel withdraws | Plaintiffs implied corporate defendants must be represented to avoid default | Defendants (through former counsel) sought time to retain counsel; did not contest withdrawal | Court reiterated corporations cannot appear pro se and ordered retention of substitute counsel by Sept 9, 2019 or face default risk |
| Appropriate notice/period for withdrawal | Plaintiffs sought protection against prejudice and continued representation | Heyl, Royster sought 45 days’ notice to allow time to engage new counsel | Court imposed a withdrawal-notice period through Sept 9, 2019 and set Sept 10, 2019 as effective withdrawal date if no substitution earlier |
| Consequences of failing to obtain substitute counsel | Plaintiffs sought effective remedies, including default judgment if defendants fail to appear | Defendants risked default but offered no alternative to secure counsel timely | Court warned default or striking of pleadings may follow if corporate defendants fail to obtain counsel; individual defendant may be required to proceed pro se |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (corporations cannot appear pro se and must be represented by counsel)
- Forsythe v. Hales, 255 F.3d 487 (8th Cir. 2001) (failure to engage in litigation or retain counsel can support default judgment)
- Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 1996) (corporate defendant is technically in default when counsel withdraws and no substitute counsel appears)