Giangrande v. Dutchess County

Background

Joseph Giangrande and Organic Outpost, Inc. filed the underlying lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Dutchess, on March 25, 2025. The defendants later removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The defendants had indicated that they anticipated filing motions to dismiss.

Plaintiffs’ lawyer, Jimmy Miguel Santos, told the court that he would be suspended from practicing law for one year beginning August 15, 2025, and requested more time for plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. The court extended the deadline and later directed plaintiffs to obtain new counsel and file an amended complaint. After plaintiffs requested additional time, the court set a September 30 deadline. Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint or request more time. The court then ordered them to obtain new counsel and file an amended complaint by October 31, 2025, warning that noncompliance might result in dismissal. The opinion states that there had been no docket activity since the clerk mailed those orders on October 8, 2025.

Counsel’s Withdrawal

Although Santos had told the court about his suspension, he had not formally moved to withdraw and remained counsel of record. The court construed his earlier letter as an application to withdraw and granted that application. The clerk was directed to terminate Santos as counsel in the action.

Stay and Representation Requirements

The court stayed the action for 30 days to allow plaintiffs to obtain substitute counsel. It stated that Organic Outpost, Inc., as a corporation, must appear in federal court through a licensed attorney and may not appear without counsel. The court warned that unless Organic Outpost, Inc. appeared through counsel by December 31, 2025, it would be dismissed as a named plaintiff, along with claims pursued on its behalf.

The court separately directed Giangrande, by December 31, 2025, either to retain counsel and have counsel file a notice of appearance or to notify the court in writing that he intended to proceed without a lawyer and provide his correct current mailing address. The court warned that failure to comply, including failure to provide his address, might result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal for failure to follow a court order or otherwise move a case forward.

Service of the Order

The clerk was directed to mail the order to plaintiffs at the address listed in the order and record service on the docket. Santos was also directed, as outgoing counsel, to mail the order to plaintiffs at that address and record service on the docket.

What the Order Decided

This was a procedural order about counsel, representation, deadlines, and the case’s temporary stay. It did not decide the merits of plaintiffs’ claims or dismiss the action at this stage.