Laserfiche WebLink
'. <br />. ~, <br />13. Upon information and belief, the Franklin Mining Company is in a joint venture, <br />or at a minimum, is an affiliate of Durango Metals for purposes of mining operations at the <br />Mogul Tunnel Mine. At a minimum, this Firm is gravely concerned about what entity it is, or x <br />has recently been, representing. In a worse case scenario, this Firm cannot be forced to <br />represent entities of which it is not voluntarily apprised. Potential conflict of interest questions <br />abound, not to mention the potential for indispensable parties having to be named to the suit. <br />Effect Upon Trial Date <br />14. This Firm has made every effort to attempt to resolve its potential as well as <br />existing conflicts with the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have failed and refused, and continue to fail <br />and refuse to comply with its obligations to: (1) pay the Firm; (2) cooperate with its counsel, <br />and (3) advise the Firm of its present corporate affiliations and/or identification. The company <br />which is in common control and/or ownership of the Mogul Tunnel Mine is represented by <br />counsel within the State of Colorado. They are represented, upon information and belief, by the <br />firm of Bradley, Campbell, Carney and Madsen. Counsel for that firm informs counsel for the <br />Firm that John Henderson, counsel for Mr. Rugg, has already been in contact with them. <br />15. Counsel for the Plaintiffs today contacted Earl Madsen, of Bradley, Campbell, <br />Carney and Madsen, as well as John Henderson of Vranesh and Raisch to orally inform them <br />of this Firm's decision to move for authority to withdraw as counsel. Although the trial date <br />is fast approaching, it may be possible for Durango Metals and Mr. Hartley to obtain other <br />counsel. However, even if that is not possible, it would be highly prejudicial, in fact punitive, <br />to require this Firm to continue to represent Durango Metals and Hartley. The alternative of <br />a brief delay in the eventual trial date seems to be less prejudicial than requiring the Firm to <br />represent clients for the numerous reasons set forth in this Motion. <br />WHEREFORE, for all the reasons set forth above, the Firm respectfully requests [hat <br />this Court authorize the Firm to withdraw as counsel of record on behalf of the Plaintiffs. <br />DATED February 20, 1996. <br />Respectfully submitted, <br />MESSNER PAVEK & REEVES, LLC <br />sy: ~--`i <br />avid D. Pavek 1/16142) <br />David A. Reeves {1l25907~ <br />600 Seventeenth Street <br />Suite 2100-South <br />Denver, Colorado 80202 <br />(303) 623-1800 <br />ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS <br />3 <br />