Patsy's Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc.
- Kimba Wood
- 1:99-cv-10175
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Patsy’s Brand v. I.O.B. Realty, Judge Wood withheld judgment on defense counsel’s withdrawal motion and ordered responses by January 24.
Defense counsel Adam Leitman Bailey; defendants I.O.B. Realty, Inc., Patsy’s Inc., and Frank Brija; respondents Adem Brija, Nexhmiye Nezaj, and Muharrem Memishaj; and plaintiff’s counsel.
What happened
In Patsy’s Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc., defense counsel Adam Leitman Bailey asked to withdraw from representing several defendants and respondents. He also asked to file supporting papers under seal, meaning they would not be publicly available.
The court disclosed that the motion was based on unpaid legal bills and irreconcilable differences. It did not yet decide whether counsel could withdraw or whether the papers could be sealed. The affected defendants and respondents were ordered to submit a response of no more than five pages by January 24, 2025, at 5 p.m.
Judge Kimba M. Wood ordered Mr. Bailey to send the order to the defendants and respondents and stated that the court would decide the motion based on the existing record if no response was filed.
The detailed version
- Patsy's Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc. · No. 1:99-cv-10175
- Kimba Wood
- Jan. 17, 2025
Background
On January 9, 2025, Adam Leitman Bailey, counsel for I.O.B. Realty, Inc., Patsy’s Inc., and Frank Brija, as well as respondents Adem Brija, Nexhmiye Nezaj, and Muharrem Memishaj, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. The motion also sought permission to file its supporting papers under seal. Mr. Bailey emailed the motion papers to the court and provided a copy to his clients. Counsel for Patsy’s Brand, Inc. opposed the motion by letter on January 13, 2025.
Court’s Action
The court withheld judgment on both the motion to withdraw and the request to file the supporting papers under seal. It informed plaintiff’s counsel that the stated basis for the withdrawal motion was a dispute over the defendants’ and respondents’ failure to pay their legal bills and irreconcilable differences.
Next Step and Ruling
The court ordered the defendants and respondents to submit a response of no more than five pages by January 24, 2025, at 5 p.m. It stated that, if no response was filed, it would decide the motion on the existing record. Judge Kimba M. Wood also directed Mr. Bailey to provide the defendants and respondents with a copy of the order by email as soon as practicable. The order did not grant or deny the motion to withdraw or the request to seal the supporting papers.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.