MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. v. Airlift Marine Services Pvt Ltd
- Ona Wang
- 1:18-cv-10788
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company v. Airlift Marine Services, Judge Wang required further filings before deciding counsel’s withdrawal motion.
Steven D. Janel, Airlift Marine Services Pvt Ltd., Airlift (U.S.A.), Inc., and the other parties or counsel involved in the case.
What happened
MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. v. Airlift Marine Services Pvt Ltd. concerns Steven D. Janel’s request to withdraw as counsel for the defendants. The order states that Janel was the only lawyer representing Airlift Marine Services Pvt Ltd., while Airlift (U.S.A.), Inc. had another lawyer who would remain in the case.
The court identified two problems with the request. Companies cannot represent themselves without a lawyer, and the motion did not say whether the clients had received it as required by a local court rule.
Judge Ona T. Wang did not decide the withdrawal request at that point. She ordered Janel by January 17, 2020, either to file a replacement lawyer for Airlift Marine or explain why withdrawal would not harm it. She also ordered him to serve both clients with the order and motion and file proof of service.
The detailed version
- MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. v. Airlift Marine Services Pvt Ltd · No. 1:18-cv-10788
- Ona Wang
- Jan. 10, 2020
Background
The court received Steven D. Janel’s motion to withdraw as counsel for the defendants. The opinion says that Airlift (U.S.A.), Inc. had co-counsel who would remain in the case, but Janel was the sole counsel of record for Airlift Marine Services Pvt Ltd. The court considered whether withdrawal would prejudice, or harm, the clients.
Issues Identified by the Court
The court noted that companies may not proceed without a lawyer. It also found that Janel’s motion did not state whether his clients had been served with the motion, as required by Local Rule 1.4.
Ruling and Required Filings
Judge Ona T. Wang ordered Janel, by January 17, 2020, to do one of two things on behalf of Airlift Marine: file a substitution of counsel, or file a supplemental submission explaining why Airlift Marine would not be prejudiced by his withdrawal. The court separately ordered Janel to serve both clients with the order and the withdrawal motion and file an affidavit of service. Other parties or counsel could file responses by the same date. The order did not grant or deny the motion to withdraw.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.