Chen v. Kicho Corporation
- Philip Halpern
- 7:18-cv-07413
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Chen v. Kicho Corporation, Judge Smith granted defense counsel’s withdrawal request and ordered affected defendants to obtain new counsel.
Defense counsel was permitted to withdraw from representing Jin Chun Chen and Kicho Corporation, and the order applied equally to Lian Hua Corporation. The affected defendants were ordered to obtain counsel within 30 days, subject to the court’s stated possibility of considering a motion for default.
What happened
In Chen v. Kicho Corporation, defense counsel asked to stop representing Kicho Corporation and Jin Chun Chen because they did not communicate or cooperate with counsel and had not paid legal fees. Plaintiff opposed the request, arguing that withdrawal would cause delay and prejudice the plaintiff and potential additional plaintiffs.
The court found that the communication problems and unpaid fees were satisfactory reasons for withdrawal. It also found that the case was still early in discovery and far from trial, so allowing counsel to withdraw would not cause enough delay or prejudice to justify denying the request.
Judge Smith granted counsel’s request to be relieved from representing Jin Chun Chen and Kicho Corporation. The defendants were ordered to obtain new counsel within 30 days, or the court would consider a motion for default; the order also applied to Lian Hua Corporation.
The detailed version
- Chen v. Kicho Corporation · No. 7:18-cv-07413
- Philip Halpern
- June 25, 2020
Background
William X. Zou asked to withdraw as counsel for Kicho Corporation, doing business as Kicho Japanese Fusion, and Jin Chun Chen. He stated that the defendants had not communicated or cooperated with him, had not followed his instructions, and had not paid his legal fees. He also stated that the defendants had already discharged him and agreed that he could formally withdraw. Lian Hua Corporation, also doing business as Kicho Japanese Fusion, had not appeared in the action.
Plaintiff opposed the request. Plaintiff argued that the withdrawal was a tactic to delay the case, particularly because the defendants had an obligation to provide contact information for potential additional plaintiffs. Plaintiff also argued that withdrawal would prejudice the plaintiff and potential additional plaintiffs.
Court’s analysis
Under Local Civil Rule 1.4, an attorney who has appeared for a party may withdraw only with the court’s permission and must show satisfactory reasons for withdrawal. The court considered two factors: the reason for withdrawal and the effect of withdrawal on the timing of the proceedings.
The court rejected plaintiff’s claim that the withdrawal request was designed to delay the case. It found that the prior delays were not caused entirely by the defendants and that counsel had reported communication problems and unpaid fees before the defendants’ production obligation arose. The court concluded that failure to communicate with counsel and failure to pay legal fees were satisfactory reasons for withdrawal.
The court also rejected plaintiff’s prejudice argument. Discovery was still in its early stages, and the case was far from trial. The court found that any resulting delay was not sufficiently serious to justify denying the request.
Ruling
The court GRANTED defense counsel’s request to be relieved as counsel for Jin Chun Chen and Kicho Corporation. The defendants were directed to obtain new counsel within 30 days. If new counsel did not file a notice of appearance within that period, the court stated that it would consider a motion for default. If Jin Chun Chen intended to represent himself, he was required to provide the court with his mailing address, telephone number, and email address within 30 days. The court reminded the defendants that a corporation may appear in court only through an attorney.
The order applied equally to Lian Hua Corporation, and the court stated that mailing a copy of the order through the New York Secretary of State’s office constituted sufficient service on that corporation. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate Docket No. 96, which had been marked as a filing error.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.