The attorney representing the owner of the former Pomp Boys Motors Monday filed a motion to withdraw as the counsel of record in the case.
There were no documents filed as of this report that give a reason for Abraham Rubert-Schewel filing the motion in the United States Eastern District Court of North Carolina other than the mention of a letter Vivian Pompliano sent to him, attorney Gagan Gupta, and their law firm — Tin Fulton Walker & Owen. The letter, which terminates the attorneys as counsel, was not included in the case file and no order has yet to be entered.
The motion says the letter was dated January 6, the same date that all claims against defendants Dennis Harvey and Vickie Evans were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.
Counsel for Harvey and Evans in December had moved to dismiss the complaint against them, move to stay the litigation, or move the litigation to arbitration.
The original complaint was filed July of last year and includes as defendants the city of Roanoke Rapids; former officer Jamie Lee Hardy, and officers Antonio Seward, and Jayme Shelburne in their individual and official capacities; Rose Beacham in her individual capacity; and L&R Motor Company.
The motion says that the parties have not begun discovery and have not yet received a scheduling order from the court. “Because they have been terminated as counsel, undersigned counsel seek to withdraw from this litigation,” the motion says. “(The) undersigned counsel has consulted with plaintiffs and informed plaintiffs in writing that they are seeking to withdraw from this matter.”
The motion notes that Pompliano has been advised to seek new counsel in the matter. “(The) plaintiffs are working diligently to hire new counsel and intend to vigorously pursue their claims in this matter. Finally, undersigned counsels’ withdrawal can be conducted without material adverse effects on plaintiffs. In addressing motions to withdraw as counsel, district courts have typically considered whether the prosecution of the suit is likely to be disrupted which in turn depends on the stage of the proceedings. The parties have not yet begun discovery, nor has the court set a discovery schedule. Plaintiffs, at this early stage of the litigation, have sufficient time to hire new counsel to prosecute this suit.”
The lawsuit charges that three officers within the Roanoke Rapids Police Department exercised extreme misconduct which contributed to the demise of the business and says that through a repeated pattern of harassment, threats and eventually false criminal charges, the intent of the officers was to protect the financial interests of local mechanics and car shop owners through retaliation for the plaintiff’s constitutionally protected speech and actions.