Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 2, 2020

Pristine Jewelers NY, Inc. v. Broner

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:18-cv-12155
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Pristine Jewelers v. Broner, Judge Liman granted counsel’s withdrawal requests, with ABL’s withdrawal effective March 27 and a deadline to retain counsel.

Who this affects

Ravone Littlejohn’s attorney was allowed to withdraw. Counsel for About Billions, LLC was allowed to withdraw effective March 27, 2020, and ABL was required to retain new counsel to defend itself or face possible default-judgment proceedings.

What happened

Pristine Jewelers NY, Inc. v. Broner involved requests by attorneys for Ravone Littlejohn and About Billions, LLC to stop representing those defendants. The attorneys cited confidential reasons, including an irreversible breakdown in the attorney-client relationship for Littlejohn.

The court had previously dismissed About Billions, LLC after approving a settlement, while keeping authority to enforce that agreement. Pristine Jewelers later sought to reopen the agreement and pursue a default judgment, so About Billions, LLC might need to defend itself again.

Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the request to withdraw for Littlejohn. He permitted counsel for About Billions, LLC to withdraw effective March 27, 2020, required the company to retain a lawyer if it wanted to defend itself, and stated that the court would consider a default-judgment motion if no lawyer appeared by March 30. The case remained stayed until an April 1 status conference.

The detailed version

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

Case
Pristine Jewelers NY, Inc. v. Broner · No. 1:18-cv-12155
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Mar. 2, 2020

Background

The court considered two applications by attorneys to withdraw as counsel. Dmitriy Shakhnevich sought to withdraw as counsel for Defendant Ravone Littlejohn. Kevin M. Brown of Mintz & Gold LLP sought to withdraw as counsel for Defendant About Billions, LLC (ABL). The attorneys submitted confidential letters explaining their reasons for seeking withdrawal.

For Littlejohn, Shakhnevich reported that the attorney-client relationship had irreversibly broken down. Neither Littlejohn nor Pristine Jewelers submitted opposition, and Shakhnevich did not seek a lien against Littlejohn.

ABL had previously been dismissed after the court approved a settlement agreement on June 20, 2019, while retaining jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. On January 22, 2020, Pristine Jewelers sought permission to reopen the settlement agreement and seek a default judgment against ABL and Adrien Broner. The court therefore considered that ABL might need new counsel to defend against that potential proceeding.

Legal standard

When deciding whether an attorney may withdraw, the court considers the reasons for withdrawal and the effect of withdrawal on the timing of the case. A corporation may not appear in court without an attorney. If a corporation repeatedly fails to appear through counsel, the court may enter a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55.

Ruling

The court granted the motion to withdraw as counsel for Littlejohn. It permitted Brown to withdraw as counsel for ABL effective March 27, 2020. The court found that the reasons for withdrawal were satisfactory, that Brown did not intend to assert a lien, and that withdrawal was unlikely to cause unacceptable delay because any potential default-judgment proceeding would likely require little or no discovery and the case was not near trial.

The court notified ABL that it had to retain counsel if it intended to defend itself. If counsel did not appear by March 30, 2020, the court would entertain a motion for default judgment against ABL. The court ordered current counsel to serve ABL with the order and file proof of service. It scheduled a status conference for April 1, 2020, kept the case stayed until then, and directed the clerk to close the docket entries concerning the withdrawal applications.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.