Muza v. Outcomes
- Sarah Cave
- 1:25-cv-03262
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Renee Muza v. Peak Outcomes, Judge Cave ordered defendants to respond to their lawyer’s withdrawal motion by December 17, 2025.
The order affects Peak Outcomes, LLC, Kyle Budinscak, Lauren Gerndt, and Kayla Noone, whose counsel sought to withdraw. It also specifically warns Peak Outcomes, LLC that it must appear through a licensed attorney and could face default proceedings if it lacks counsel or does not timely respond.
What happened
In Renee Muza, et al. v. Peak Outcomes, LLC, et al., counsel for several defendants asked to withdraw from representing Peak Outcomes, LLC, Kyle Budinscak, Lauren Gerndt, and Kayla Noone.
The court ordered those defendants to respond to the motion by December 17, 2025. It warned that failing to respond would lead the court to grant the motion and pause the case for 30 days so the defendants could obtain new counsel.
The court also warned that Peak Outcomes, LLC must appear through a lawyer and might face default proceedings if it does not respond or obtain new counsel. Judge Sarah L. Cave issued the order.
The detailed version
- Muza v. Outcomes · No. 1:25-cv-03262
- Sarah Cave
- Dec. 3, 2025
Background
The case was referred to Judge Sarah L. Cave for general pretrial management and to handle a motion by counsel for Peak Outcomes, LLC, Kyle Budinscak, Lauren Gerndt, and Kayla Noone to withdraw from representing those defendants. The opinion identifies the filing as Docket No. 43.
Order
The court ordered the Peak Defendants to respond to the motion by December 17, 2025. The court warned that if they did not respond by that date, it would grant the motion and stay, or pause, the case for 30 days to allow them to obtain new counsel.
The court separately notified Peak Outcomes, LLC that a limited liability company must appear in federal court through a licensed attorney and cannot represent itself. The court warned that if Peak Outcomes, LLC failed to timely respond to the motion or failed to have new counsel appear, the court might permit the plaintiff to begin default proceedings against it. The order did not state that the motion to withdraw had already been granted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.