Could some one explain this in English to me

[Cherinfo]

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL'S EX PARTE MOTION TO WITHDRAW

I just received a letter from the 5th Judicial Circuit Court Florida. It's an order Denying Plaintiff's Counsel Ex Parte motion to withdraw as Counsel. What does this me for us? There attorney's are Ben -Ezra and Kratz. Reason given for denying
Rule 2.505(f) The appearance of an attorney for a party in proceeding shall terminate only in one of the following ways
(1) withdrawal of attorney By order of the court, where the proceedings is continuing,upon motion and hearing to all parties and the client, such motion setting fourth the reasons for withdrawal and the client's last know address. (emphasis added)

Rather than requesting a hearing after notice, as required by rule 2.505, the instant motion requests an Ex Parta order permitting counsels withdrawal with a provision permitting objections and requests for a hearing by the other parties action. Permitting counsel to withdraw without a hearing and proper notice to all parties would intere with the efficient and proper functioning of the court and disposition of the instant action.




This case has been inactive, there has been no movement and the plaintiff's own counsel wants out. Why deny there request? What happens next?

[justbroke]

I thought that I answered this in another thread. It means that the party that sued you, the plaintiff, was represented by a particular attorney (firm). In your case, that's Ben -Ezra and Kratz. So Kratz doesn't want to be the plaintiff's attorney anymore and tried to "withdraw" by sending notice to the court that they want to end their appearance/representation. However, the court denied it.

With all the fraud that has gone on with foreclosures in Florida, the judge probably wants a reason why they are withdrawing. The technical aspect is that they probably don't have a substitute attorney to continue the case.

justbroke's study guide here's the text from Florida's Rules Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 2.505(f)

Rule 2.505(f) Termination of Appearance of Attorney. The appearance of an attorney for a party in a proceeding shall terminate only in one of the following ways: (1) Withdrawal of Attorney. By order of court, where the proceeding is continuing, upon motion and hearing, on notice to all parties and the client, such motion setting forth the reasons for withdrawal and the client’s last known address. (2) Substitution of Attorney. By order of court, under the procedure set forth in subdivision (e)(2) of this rule.(3) Termination of Proceeding. Automatically, without order of court, upon the termination of a proceed-ing, whether by final order of dismissal, by final adjudication, or otherwise, and following the expiration of any applicable time for appeal, where no appeal is taken. (4) Filing of Notice of Completion. For limited representation proceedings under Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.040, automatically, by the filing of a notice of completion titled “Termination of Limited Appearance” pursuant to rule 12.040(c).

[tobee43]

i hope someone can give a more "legal" answer but sometimes an ex parte motion is filed i.e. when there may be an enrollment and withdrawal of counsel.

was this a creditors atty? this Ben-Ezra adn Kratz?? hopefully someone could explain what reasons there would be for a denial on the motion.

[Cherinfo]

i hope someone can give a more "legal" answer but sometimes an ex parte motion is filed i.e. when there may be an enrollment and withdrawal of counsel.

was this a creditors atty? this Ben-Ezra adn Kratz?? hopefully someone could explain what reasons there would be for a denial on the motion.

Yes, this is the creditors atty.

[tobee43]

Yes, this is the creditors atty.

jb really outlined the situation for you i would re-read that information again as it explains it much better than i ever could.. and as pointed out and explained by jb, with all the fraud going on the court is just asking for more clarification. i would go with that.

[justbroke]

This case has been inactive, there has been no movement and the plaintiff's own counsel wants out. Why deny there request? What happens next?

This is nothing more than PROCEDURAL stuff. Ezra must not want to be counsel anymore, or the relationship between your bank and them has ended. In any event, it means nothing for you. More than likely, the case will be dismissed for lack of want of prosecution (if there's been nothing in a about a year).

[ByeByeCCs]

More likely that the bank does not want Ben, Ezra and Katz anymore. See article: http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pu...estigation.php