Jimenez v. Borinquen Super Market, Inc

Background

This wage-and-hour action had completed discovery. The parties later attended mediation and reached a settlement agreement. They asked the court to approve that agreement, but the court identified an unsupported difference between the expenses to be paid to plaintiff’s counsel under the settlement and the documented litigation expenses. The court allowed the parties additional time to correct the agreement. By January 15, 2025, no fully executed amended settlement agreement had been filed.

On that date, attorney Matthew Cohen sought permission to file under seal a motion asking to withdraw as counsel for defendants Cofaci Foods Inc., doing business as Borinquen Supermarket, and Lillian Castillo, and to stay the matter for 30 days so defendants could seek new counsel. The court construed the request as being made for all three defense counsel of record: Cohen, Amanda Slutsky, and Erika Rosenblum. Plaintiff did not oppose the request. The record did not show that defendants had been served with either the withdrawal motion or the sealing motion.

Reasons for Denying Withdrawal

Judge Moses held that the withdrawal motion could not be granted on the existing record. Local Civil Rule 1.4 required counsel to serve the motion on the clients, state whether counsel asserted a retaining lien—a claim to hold a client’s file or property to secure payment of fees—and provide a satisfactory reason for withdrawal through an affidavit or other evidence. The motion did not satisfy those requirements. The publicly filed papers also did not describe the reasons for withdrawal, even generally, and the ex parte submission consisted only of an unsworn letter.

The court noted that client noncommunication and unpaid fees can support withdrawal when properly documented. It also explained that only genuinely sensitive details should be kept from public view if sealing is necessary.

Rulings and Required Next Steps

The court DENIED the motion for leave to withdraw, Docket 107, without prejudice to renewal under Local Civil Rule 1.4 and the order. The court GRANTED the motion for leave to file the withdrawal motion under seal, Docket 106.

If counsel renewed the withdrawal motion, the publicly filed papers had to state the reasons for withdrawal, include admissible supporting evidence such as a declaration, state whether counsel asserted a retaining lien, and be preceded by service of the unredacted motion papers and the order on defendants. The order also described how defendants could respond. If counsel did not renew the motion, the parties had to submit by February 11, 2025 either a fully executed amended settlement agreement for court approval or, jointly, a proposed joint pretrial order. The clerk was directed to close the two motions.