Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 6, 2019

Patsy's Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc.

Judge
Kimba Wood
Docket
1:99-cv-10175
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Patsy's Brand v. I.O.B. Realty, Judge Wood converted a hearing, continued discovery obligations, and restricted counsel withdrawal until new trademark counsel was retained.

Who this affects

The defendants and their attorneys, including Paul Grandinetti and Steven M. Levy, as well as the parties and counsel required to attend the conference and comply with the December 3 discovery order.

What happened

Patsy's Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc. concerned a December 11, 2019 hearing and related representation and discovery issues. The opinion does not decide the underlying dispute between the parties.

The court converted the scheduled hearing into a conference about the defendants’ representation and related procedures. It required all parties and counsel to attend, and required Paul Grandinetti to be prepared to testify. The court also kept its December 3 order in effect, including its discovery deadlines and requirements.

Judge Kimba M. Wood ruled that Mr. Grandinetti could not withdraw as counsel until the defendants retained new trademark counsel because a corporation must appear through an attorney. The court allowed Steven M. Levy to seek permission to withdraw without a pre-motion conference and excused him from attending the December 11 conference.

The detailed version

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

Case
Patsy's Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc. · No. 1:99-cv-10175
Judge
Kimba Wood
Date
Dec. 6, 2019

Nature of the Order

This was a procedural order addressing a scheduled hearing, discovery compliance, and the defendants’ legal representation. It did not decide the underlying claims.

Court’s Directions

The court converted the December 11, 2019 hearing into a conference concerning the defendants’ representation and related procedural matters. It ordered all parties and counsel to appear and required Paul Grandinetti to be prepared to testify.

The court stated that its December 3, 2019 order remained in effect. Paul Grandinetti and the attorneys responsible for producing the discovery identified in that order were required to comply with all of its terms and deadlines.

Representation Ruling

The court relied on the rule that a corporation may not appear in a lawsuit except through an attorney. Based on that rule, it would not permit Mr. Grandinetti to withdraw as counsel until the defendants retained new trademark counsel.

The court separately stated that Steven M. Levy could move to withdraw as counsel without a pre-motion conference and would not be required to appear at the December 11 conference.

Disposition

The court converted the hearing into a conference, continued the obligations in the December 3 order, limited Mr. Grandinetti’s withdrawal until new trademark counsel was retained, and excused Mr. Levy from the conference. The order did not resolve the merits of the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.