Lee v. Byrnes Special Works, LLC
- Lin
- 3:24-cv-03629
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Lee v. Byrnes Special Works, Judge Lin ordered counsel and plaintiffs to explain representation and missed filings, warning the case could be dismissed.
Plaintiffs Martin Eng Lee and Pioneer 74 Lots, LLC, and their counsel Reshma Kamath.
What happened
In Lee v. Byrnes Special Works, LLC, the court learned that plaintiffs’ lawyer, Reshma Kamath, had been disbarred from practicing in the Northern District of California and had not told the judge about it. The court ordered Kamath to explain by November 22, 2024, why she should not be removed as counsel, or instead file a motion to withdraw meeting specified requirements.
The court also ordered Pioneer 74 Lots, LLC, to obtain new counsel or explain why it should not be dismissed for failing to prosecute. Martin Eng Lee could obtain new counsel or state that he would represent himself. The plaintiffs also had to respond to the pending motion to dismiss or ask for permission to file a late response by December 20, 2024.
Judge Rita F. Lin warned that failing to make the required filings could result in dismissal without further notice for failure to prosecute. The order did not decide the underlying claims or the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Lee v. Byrnes Special Works, LLC · No. 3:24-cv-03629
- Lin
- Nov. 14, 2024
Background
The court stated that plaintiffs’ counsel, Reshma Kamath, was disbarred from practicing as an attorney in the Northern District of California on August 29, 2024. According to the order, the disbarment order required Kamath to notify clients she represented in the District and the judges presiding over those cases. The court stated that Kamath had not notified the judge in this case.
The plaintiffs’ response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss was due on November 12, 2024, but no response had been filed.
Orders
The court ordered Kamath to show cause—meaning to explain—by November 22, 2024, why she should not be removed as counsel under Civil Local Rule 11-1(a). Instead of responding to the show-cause order, Kamath could file a motion to withdraw by that date if the motion verified that she had notified the plaintiffs of her disbarment, provided the plaintiffs’ contact information, and certified that the show-cause order had been served on the plaintiffs.
The court stated that Pioneer 74 Lots, LLC, a corporation, could not proceed without an attorney. By December 20, 2024, Pioneer 74 Lots had to have new counsel file a notice of appearance if Kamath had withdrawn, or a substitution of counsel if she had not withdrawn. Alternatively, Pioneer 74 Lots had to show cause why it should not be dismissed from the case for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The court stated that Martin Eng Lee, an individual, could proceed without an attorney. By December 20, 2024, Lee had to have new counsel file a notice of appearance or substitution of counsel, or provide a statement that he intended to represent himself.
The plaintiffs also had to file a response to the motion to dismiss by December 20, 2024, or seek permission to file a late response by that date.
Disposition and Effect
The court issued an order to show cause and imposed filing deadlines. It did not remove Kamath, dismiss Pioneer 74 Lots, dismiss the case, or rule on the motion to dismiss in this order. The court warned that if the plaintiffs failed to make the required filings, the case could be dismissed without further notice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The Clerk was ordered to mail the order to Pioneer 74 Lots’ corporate agent and to Martin Eng Lee at the addresses identified in the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.