Tepley v. Gro Intelligence, Inc.
- Rochon
- 1:24-cv-03075
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tepley v. Gro Intelligence, Judge Rochon ordered Gro to respond to its lawyer’s withdrawal motion but did not yet decide it.
Gro Intelligence, Inc. and its counsel, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, were required to take the actions described in the order. Gro was warned about the consequences of proceeding without a lawyer if counsel withdraws.
What happened
In Tepley v. Gro Intelligence, Inc., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher asked to stop representing Gro Intelligence, Inc. The firm said Gro was insolvent, had stopped operating, and consented to the request. The motion also concerned defendant Sara Menker, who is named in the case caption.
The court ordered the firm to serve Gro with the order by June 17, 2024, and file proof of service. It also ordered Gro to file a letter by June 24, 2024, confirming whether it agrees to the firm’s withdrawal. The order did not decide the withdrawal motion.
Judge Rochon warned that a corporation cannot represent itself without a lawyer. She stated that if the withdrawal motion is granted and Gro does not hire new counsel, the court may enter a certificate of default and a default judgment.
The detailed version
- Tepley v. Gro Intelligence, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-03075
- Rochon
- June 12, 2024
Background
Allison Tepley sued Gro Intelligence, Inc. and Sara Menker. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP moved to withdraw as counsel for Gro. The firm stated that Gro was insolvent and had terminated operations. It also stated that Gro had received notice of the motion and consented to the firm’s withdrawal.
Court’s Orders
The court did not rule on whether Gibson Dunn could withdraw. Instead, it ordered Gibson Dunn to serve Gro with a copy of the order by June 17, 2024, and file proof of service on the docket. The court also ordered Gro to file a letter by June 24, 2024, confirming whether it consents to Gibson Dunn’s withdrawal as represented in the motion. Gibson Dunn was directed to ensure that any response from Gro is filed on the docket.
Warning to Gro
The court advised Gro that corporations cannot proceed without a lawyer. It warned that, if the withdrawal motion is granted and Gro fails to retain new counsel, that failure may lead to entry of a certificate of default and a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a).
Disposition
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon issued deadlines and a warning while permitting further consideration of the withdrawal motion. The opinion does not state that the motion to withdraw was granted or denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.