Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 28, 2025

Lee v. HDR Global Trading Limited

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:20-cv-03232
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Lee v. HDR Global Trading Limited, Judge Aaron granted counsel’s withdrawal motion and required Lee to meet deadlines while deciding whether to continue without counsel.

Who this affects

Drew Lee, his withdrawing counsel Selendy Gay PLLC, and the remaining parties to the case. Lee must continue meeting court, deadline, and discovery requirements unless the court orders otherwise.

What happened

In Lee v. HDR Global Trading Limited, Selendy Gay PLLC asked to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff Drew Lee. The court received no response from Lee by the deadline set for responding.

The court granted the motion to withdraw. Lee may obtain new counsel or appear without a lawyer, but he must follow court orders and deadlines and meet his discovery obligations.

Judge Aaron reserved a decision on the request to require Lee to explain why his claims should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The order required counsel to serve Lee with the order and required Lee to tell the court by May 9, 2025, whether he intends to continue the case without a lawyer.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Lee v. HDR Global Trading Limited · No. 1:20-cv-03232
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Apr. 28, 2025

Background

Selendy Gay PLLC moved under Local Civil Rule 1.4 to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff Drew Lee. The court stated that Lee did not respond by the April 25, 2025 deadline. The case is brought by Drew Lee and Felix Lufkin individually and on behalf of others similarly situated.

Ruling

The court granted Selendy Gay PLLC’s motion to withdraw. Lee may obtain new counsel or appear without a lawyer. The order states that Lee must comply with all court orders and deadlines and satisfy all discovery obligations. Failure to do so may lead to sanctions, including a recommendation to Judge Carter that Lee be dismissed from the action for failure to prosecute, or an order of dismissal by Judge Carter.

The court reserved action on the motion’s additional request for an order requiring Lee to explain why his claims should not be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The order required Selendy Gay PLLC to serve Lee with a copy of the order and file proof of service by May 2, 2025, and to file Lee’s last known contact information by that date. Lee also had to file a letter by May 9, 2025, stating whether he intended to continue prosecuting the case without a lawyer. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.