Tatintsiian v. Vorotyntsev

Background

The order concerns two related cases. The court previously granted attorneys’ requests to withdraw as counsel for all defendants and explained that the corporate defendants—Aum Code LLC, IT Adapter LLC, and ShopLink Inc.—could appear in court only through counsel. The court set deadlines for the corporations to retain new counsel, and the deadlines were not met. The Clerk entered a default against the corporate entities, but the court later vacated that default after an attorney appeared for them.

In 2021, Robert Gilbert Leino appeared for the corporate defendants. After trial was scheduled, Leino moved to withdraw, and the court granted that motion on May 2, 2025. The court again warned that the corporate defendants’ counterclaims in the Khmaladze case could be dismissed for failure to prosecute—that is, for failing to move the claims forward—if new counsel did not appear. John Snyder later appeared for all defendants in the Khmaladze case, but he moved to withdraw on September 25, 2025. The court granted Snyder’s motion and set October 26, 2025, as the deadline for new counsel to appear.

Request for an Extension

On October 16, 2025, Mikhail Vorotyntsev requested another extension of the deadline. The court observed that the deadline had been clearly stated and that the defendants had repeatedly been warned of the consequences of ending their relationships with counsel. The court also reviewed an email from potential new counsel stating that counsel was not inclined to appear shortly before trial because of the difficulty of becoming familiar with multiple proceedings that had continued for years. The court found that the request did not show that even a modest extension would be productive and that an extended delay would substantially prejudice the other parties.

Ruling

Judge Gregory H. Woods denied Vorotyntsev’s request. The October 26, 2025, deadline remained in place. The court stated that if new counsel did not appear by that date, it would find the corporate defendants in default and expected to dismiss their counterclaims for failure to prosecute. The court also stated that the October 27 conference would proceed as scheduled and that it expected to set deadlines for the portions of the cases ready for trial.

The court directed that future communications be filed on the electronic docket rather than sent to chambers by email. Finally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied filing-fee waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to the defendants by certified mail.