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
- 5
In Patsy’s Brand v. I.O.B. Realty, Judge Wood granted sealing and counsel’s withdrawal, conditioned on I.O.B. Realty retaining new counsel.
Defense counsel Adam Leitman Bailey and his firm were permitted to withdraw and were ordered to turn over relevant files and work product. I.O.B. Realty, Inc. had to retain new counsel and have that counsel appear by March 31, 2025. The individual defendants and respondents could proceed without lawyers or retain new counsel. The parties were also given deadlines and page limits for supplemental briefing.
What happened
In Patsy’s Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc., defense counsel Adam Leitman Bailey asked to withdraw from representing I.O.B. Realty, Inc., Frank Brija, and certain respondents, and asked to seal the supporting papers. The plaintiff opposed the request, while the defendants and respondents expressed a desire to proceed without lawyers.
The court granted the request to seal the withdrawal papers because they concerned confidential attorney-client communications. It also granted Bailey’s withdrawal because the attorney-client relationship had broken down, but required I.O.B. Realty, Inc. to have new counsel appear by March 31, 2025. The individual defendants and respondents could proceed without lawyers or retain new counsel.
Judge Wood also granted the plaintiff’s request for supplemental briefing and set page limits and filing deadlines for the parties’ additional briefs. Bailey’s firm had to promptly turn over relevant case files and work product, and the court said it would decide the contempt motion based on the briefs if I.O.B. Realty did not obtain new counsel.
The detailed version
- Patsy's Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc. · No. 1:99-cv-10175
- Kimba Wood
- Jan. 29, 2025
Background
On January 9, 2025, Adam Leitman Bailey, counsel for Defendants I.O.B. Realty, Inc. and Frank Brija and Respondents Adem Brija, Nexhmije Nezaj, and Muharrem Memishaj, moved to withdraw as counsel. He also asked to file the motion’s supporting documents under seal. The supporting materials were filed separately from the other parties and described counsel’s reasons for seeking withdrawal. Bailey’s firm did not claim a retaining or charging lien.
Plaintiff’s counsel opposed the motion. Frank Brija submitted a letter stating that the defendants and respondents wanted to proceed without lawyers. Plaintiff later renewed its opposition and asked that, if withdrawal were allowed, I.O.B. Realty, Inc. first be required to retain new counsel.
Motion to Seal
The court explained that court records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. It nevertheless granted the motion to seal because courts in the district routinely allow materials supporting withdrawal motions to be filed separately and under seal when necessary to protect the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship.
Motion to Withdraw
The court found that the attorney-client relationship had broken down because of irreconcilable differences and a dispute over legal fees. It stated that it did not assign blame to Bailey, his firm, or any defendant or respondent, and that the decision did not address any possible malpractice claim or fee dispute.
The court granted the motion to withdraw on the condition that I.O.B. Realty, Inc. appear through new counsel by March 31, 2025. It relied in part on the lengthy history of the litigation and the near completion of briefing on the plaintiff’s contempt motion. The court explained that a corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel and may not proceed without a lawyer. The individual defendants and respondents could proceed without lawyers or retain new counsel.
If I.O.B. Realty, Inc. failed to retain new counsel, the court stated that it would decide the contempt motion based on the briefs. Bailey’s firm was directed to immediately turn over relevant files and work product specific to the action because it was not asserting a lien.
Supplemental Briefing
The court granted Plaintiff’s request for supplemental briefing. Plaintiff’s supplemental brief, limited to 12 pages, was due April 2, 2025. Defendants and respondents, and Respondent Roffe, could each file an opposition brief of no more than 12 pages by April 16, 2025. Any plaintiff’s reply was limited to eight pages and due April 23, 2025.
Disposition
The motion to seal was GRANTED. The motion to withdraw as counsel was GRANTED on the condition that I.O.B. Realty, Inc. appear through new counsel by March 31, 2025. Plaintiff’s request for supplemental briefing was also GRANTED.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.