Buy This Entire Record For
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America v. Padron
United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division
August 12, 2019
TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
MICHAEL PADRON, MARIA PADRON, JOE ALEX MUNIZ, MICHAEL WIBRACHT, LAURA WIBRACHT, RUEBEN VILLARREAL, MANUELA VILLARREAL, JAMES BRIAN TAYLOR, FRAMEEDA TAYLOR, STEVEN WIBRACHT, ERIN WIBRACHT, RAYMOND JENKINS, WENDY JENKINS, MAPCO, INC., BLACKHAWK VENTURES, LLC, PROMASTERS CONSTRUCTION, INC., JAMCO VENTURES, LLC, HOMELAND CONSTRUCTION, INC., MBH VENTURES, LLC, MILCON CONSTRUCTION, LLC, TEAM JAMA, CORE LOGISTICS SERVICES, LLC, WPS GROUP, LLC, PADRON ENTERPRISES, INC., BLACKHAWK-JAMCO A SDVO, LLC, BLACKHAWK/JAMCO JV2, Defendants.
Elizabeth S. ("BETSY") Chestney United States
the Court in the above-styled cause of action is the Opposed
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record for Defendant Michael
Wibracht [#254], which was referred to the undersigned for
disposition on July 25, 2019. By their motion, Kevin M.
Young, Jason Pulliam, and the Law Firm of Prichard Young,
LLP, ask the Court for permission to withdraw as attorneys
for Michael Wibracht due to an irreconcilable conflict.
Court held a hearing on the motion on August 6, 2019, at
which counsel for Plaintiff, Defendant Michael Wibracht, and
Mr. Young were present. Mr. Young explained to the Court at
the hearing that the nature of the conflict is a dispute over
the payment of fees by Mr. Wibracht. Mr. Wibracht indicated
that there is also a conflict over the litigation strategy
and that he is willing to represent himself pro se.
Plaintiff indicated it is not opposed to the withdrawal.
attorney may withdraw from representation only upon leave of
the court and a showing of good cause and reasonable notice
to the client.” In the Matter of Wynn, 889
F.2d 644, 646 (5th Cir. 1989). The withdrawing attorney bears
the burden of specifying and proving the existence of good
cause for withdrawal. See United States v. Austin,
812 F.3d 453, 456 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing United States
v. Wild, 92 F.3d 304, 307 (5th Cir. 1996);
Wynn, 889 F.3d at 646)). A court's determination
whether an attorney has good cause to withdraw depends on the
facts and circumstances of the particular case. See
Wild, 92 F.3d at 307. “The withdrawal of an
attorney in a given case is a matter entrusted to the sound
discretion of the court.” United States v.
Conlan, 786 F.3d 380, 390 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Court will grant the motion because there is good cause for
the withdrawal. Mr. Pulliam, one of Mr. Wibracht's
attorneys, has been appointed to the federal judiciary as a
United States District Judge in the San Antonio Division of
the Western District of Texas. Mr. Pulliam is therefore
required to withdraw his representation. As to Mr. Young and
the law firm of Pritchard Young, LLP, the Court will also
permit the withdrawal, in light of the conflict not just over
the payment of fees but also due to the disagreement between
Mr. Wibracht and Mr. Young as to the direction of the
litigation. This case is not set for trial until February
2020, giving Mr. Wibracht ample time to retain a new attorney
if he so desires. The Court finds that no party will be
prejudiced by the withdrawal.
close of the Court's hearing, the Court advised Mr.
Wibracht regarding his obligations as a party representing
himself pro se, and Mr. Wibracht reiterated his
willingness to do so. Mr. Wibracht also made an oral motion
for electronic access to filing court documents in this case.
The Court will grant the oral motion.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Opposed Motion to
Withdraw as Counsel of Record for Defendant Michael Wibracht
[#254] is GRANTED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kevin M. Young, Jason
Pulliam, and the Law Firm of Prichard Young, LLP's
representation of Defendant Michael Wibracht in this
proceeding is hereby TERMINATED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Mr. Wibracht obtains a
new attorney, his new counsel may enter an appearance at any
time in this litigation.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Wibracht's oral
motion for electronic access to the Court's filing system
is GRANTED. Mr. Wibracht is directed to
contact the Office of the District Clerk to obtain the
e-filing and e-noticing registration form and to submit the
fully completed form to the Clerk. Under standard procedures,
the registration form will be processed by the Clerk, who has
the responsibility of verifying, approving, and effectuating
e-filing and e-noticing of court documents.
IS FINALLY ORDERED that Mr. Wibracht consult the
following resources to assist him in representing himself
pro se in this case:
• The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, available at:
• This Court's Local Rules, available at
• The “Complete Pro Se Manual” which is
available on the Court's website at: