Basurto v. Eda Food Inc.

Background

The supplied text is a letter from defendants Eda Food Inc., Karena Foods Inc., and Gary Tulsiani. It discusses plaintiffs’ counsel’s reports that Jesus Angel Basurto and Jose Jaime Reyes Patricio had stopped communicating with counsel, and that counsel’s attempts to reestablish contact had been unsuccessful. The letter also says counsel reported losing contact with a third plaintiff who did not appear at a November 13, 2019 conference.

At that conference, according to the letter, plaintiffs’ counsel said they would not withdraw from representing Basurto. The court directed counsel to file either a sworn affidavit from Basurto confirming that he wished to continue the case, would give counsel full authority to settle, and remained a plaintiff, or a motion seeking permission to withdraw from representing him.

Parties’ Positions

Defendants argued that plaintiffs’ counsel’s November 19 letter did not satisfy the court’s directive because, in defendants’ view, a notary did not witness Basurto sign the affidavit. Defendants cited New York authorities concerning notarization and argued that the lack of notarization raised questions about Basurto’s intentions and whether he had given counsel full authority to settle.

Defendants asked the court to require properly notarized affidavits from all plaintiffs stating that they wished to continue prosecuting their claims, would attend the upcoming settlement conference in person, and had given counsel full settlement authority. Alternatively, defendants asked counsel to file a motion to withdraw from representing the plaintiffs.

Court Action and Disposition

The excerpt does not clearly state a ruling on defendants’ request. It contains an apparent court-order stamp, but no readable disposition such as “granted,” “denied,” or “granted in part and denied in part.” The supplied case information identifies Judge Alison Nathan, while the letter itself is addressed to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger. Because the text does not clearly identify the court’s ruling, no outcome on the request can be reported.