Rosen v. TMS, Inc. et al, No. 1:2009cv11515 - Document 40 (D. Mass. 2010)

Court Description: Judge Joseph L. Tauro: ORDER entered ALLOWED 31 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney David Barmak and Kelley L. Finnerty terminated; and TAKING UNDER ADVISEMENT 33 MOTION for Default Judgment as to TMS, Inc. Defendant's Summary Judgment due by 9/24/2010. Each party shall included in its respective filing a Proposed Order and Findings. Summary Judgment Hearing is scheduled for 11/17/2010 at 2:15 PM.(Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)

Download PDF
Rosen v. TMS, Inc. et al Doc. 40 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS RICHARD ROSEN, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * TMS, INC. d/b/a SUPPORT PLUS * MEDICAL and WARREN K. * TROWBRIDGE, As President of TMS, Inc. * and Individually, * * Defendants. * Civil Action No. 09-11515-JLT ORDER August 24, 2010 TAURO, J. After reviewing the Parties’ submissions and after a Motion Hearing held on August 24, 2010, this court hereby orders that: 1. Defendant TMS, Inc.’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant TMS, Inc. [#31] is ALLOWED. TMS, Inc. has gone out of business, no longer has any officers, directors or employees, and effectively has ceased to exist. TMS, Inc. is not in a position to assist in its defense or to pay for Defendant Counsel’s services and the representation will result in an “unreasonable financial burden” on Defendant Counsel.1 1 Rule 1.16(b) of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct permits a lawyer to withdraw from representing a client under certain circumstances, including if “the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client . . . or other good cause for withdrawal exists.” Cf. LR, D. Mass. 83.5.2(c) (authorizing withdrawal). Dockets.Justia.com 2. Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default and Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant TMS, Inc. D/B/A Support Plus Medical [#33] is taken under advisement. 3. Defendant shall file a Motion for Summary Judgment by September 15, 2010. Plaintiff shall file its Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment by September 24, 2010. Each party shall include in its respective filing a Proposed Order and Findings. 4. A Hearing will be held on November 17, 2010. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Joseph L. Tauro United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.