Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 1, 2025

Pacific Services Establishment v. Djunic

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:24-cv-07687
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Pacific Services v. Djunic, Judge Rochon granted counsel’s withdrawal and an amended complaint, denied a stay, and adjusted case deadlines.

Who this affects

The order affected the plaintiffs, the defendants, Max Nicholas LLC as defense counsel, and Danko Djunic, who was ordered to file a notice stating that he is representing himself. The defendant entities were reminded that they must appear through attorneys.

What happened

In Pacific Services Establishment v. Djunic, the court granted Max Nicholas LLC’s motion to withdraw as counsel for the defendants and granted the plaintiffs’ motion to file a first amended complaint. The court also denied the defendants’ motion to stay the case.

The court extended fact discovery to September 26, 2025, and required the parties to submit a revised case-management plan with a revised expert-discovery deadline by August 15, 2025.

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered Danko Djunic to promptly file a notice stating that he is representing himself. The court also reminded the defendant entities that they must appear through lawyers and directed the clerk to terminate the listed motions and Max Nicholas LLC as counsel of record.

The detailed version

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

Case
Pacific Services Establishment v. Djunic · No. 1:24-cv-07687
Judge
Rochon
Date
Aug. 1, 2025

What the Court Ordered

The court granted the motion by Max Nicholas LLC to withdraw as attorney for the defendants, granted the motion for leave to file a first amended complaint, and denied the motion to stay.

Deadlines and Representation

The court extended fact discovery to September 26, 2025. It required the parties to submit a revised case-management plan, including a revised expert-discovery deadline, by August 15, 2025.

The court stated that Danko Djunic had represented at the hearing that he did not intend to retain counsel. It therefore ordered him to promptly file a notice of appearance as a self-represented party. The order provided contact information for the Pro Se Legal Assistance Clinic, while explaining that the clinic is operated by the City Bar Justice Center and is not part of the court.

The court reminded the defendants that corporations and other entities may not appear in a lawsuit without attorneys and that repeated failure to appear through counsel may lead to a default judgment. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions at Dockets 38, 41, and 44 and to terminate Max Nicholas LLC as counsel of record for the defendants.

Effect of the Order

This order addressed attorney representation, an amended pleading, a requested stay, and case-management deadlines. It did not decide the underlying claims described in the case.

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.