United States v. Evergreen Recovery Inc., 0:24-cv-02944

Attorney Manda Sertich represented certain defendants (Ms. Grygo and Evergreen entity defendants) in a federal action brought by the United States.
Sertich moved to withdraw as counsel, citing concerns about her clients’ ability to pay and a breakdown in communication.
The litigation is still at a preliminary stage, with a receiver appointed to wind down the corporate entities.
The Court previously set a deadline for any opposition to the withdrawal motion.
The government opposed Certich's withdrawal, and Ms. Grygo expressed concern about being unrepresented but did not present severe prejudice.
The Court found Sertich’s obligations under her representation agreement had been met and that no party showed severe prejudice that would prevent withdrawal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether attorney can withdraw without substitute counsel	Government argues withdrawal should not be allowed, expressing opposition	Sertich asserts good cause exists due to inability to pay and breakdown in communication	Withdrawal allowed due to good cause and lack of severe prejudice
Requirements for withdrawal under local rules/Professional Conduct	Local rules and conduct must be satisfied; government argues standards not met	Sertich claims all requirements met and has given proper notice	Court finds Sertich satisfied all procedural and substantive requirements
Prejudice to parties if withdrawal granted	Severe prejudice should bar withdrawal	Ms. Grygo expresses hardship but not severe prejudice	No severe prejudice shown; presumption favoring withdrawal stands
Fulfillment of representation agreement obligations	N/A	Sertich fulfilled agreement by representing through preliminary injunction	Court agrees obligations fulfilled

Fleming v. Harris, 39 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 1994) (district court’s discretion to permit attorney withdrawal)
Sanford v. Maid-Rite Corp., 816 F.3d 546 (8th Cir. 2016) (standards governing attorney withdrawal in federal court)
Brandon v. Blech, 560 F.3d 536 (6th Cir. 2009) (presumption in favor of withdrawal when rules are met)