The Barter House, Inc. v. Infinity Spirits LLC
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:17-cv-09276
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In The Barter House v. Infinity Spirits, Judge Engelmayer found defense counsel’s withdrawal request inadequate and ordered a detailed confidential submission before deciding it.
The order directly affected defense lawyer Tom M. Fini and the individual and corporate defendants he represented. It also affected the plaintiffs because the court would decide whether any withdrawal materials should be disclosed to them and because withdrawal could lead to reinstatement of the corporate defendants’ default judgments on liability.
What happened
The Barter House, Inc. and Brian DiMarco sued Infinity Spirits LCC and other defendants. Defense lawyer Tom M. Fini asked to withdraw, but the court said his brief supporting declaration was inadequate in light of the case’s history and upcoming trial preparations.
The court did not yet grant or deny the withdrawal request. Instead, it gave Fini until 5 p.m. on September 11, 2020, to submit a detailed affidavit and supporting materials for the court’s private review. The court also ordered Fini to promptly serve the order on all defendants and file proof of service.
Judge Engelmayer said that, if the withdrawal request later proved justified, the corporate defendants would have two weeks to find replacement counsel. If they did not, the court said it would grant Fini’s withdrawal request as to all defendants and immediately reinstate the corporate defendants’ default judgments on liability.
The detailed version
- The Barter House, Inc. v. Infinity Spirits LLC · No. 1:17-cv-09276
- Paul Engelmayer
- Sept. 8, 2020
Background
The court considered an application by Tom M. Fini, the defendants’ lawyer, to withdraw from representing the defendants. The application was supported by a brief declaration. The court noted that the case had involved what it described as improper, unprofessional, or delaying conduct by defense counsel. It also noted that the court had recently lifted a default judgment against the corporate defendants and allowed Fini to replace prior counsel for them, effective after the defendants paid plaintiffs’ counsel the required amount. The parties had since made preparations for a jury trial.
Court’s Analysis
The court found Fini’s withdrawal application inadequate because it was cursory and did not explain why withdrawal was necessary about two and a half months after Fini began representing the defendants. The court gave Fini an opportunity to submit a detailed affidavit and supporting materials for the court’s private review. The court said it would then decide whether the materials justified withdrawal and whether all or part of them should be disclosed to the plaintiffs.
Ruling and Further Procedure
The court did not grant or deny the withdrawal application in this order. It ordered Fini to submit the additional materials by 5 p.m. on September 11, 2020. It also ordered Fini to serve the order promptly on every defendant and file an affirmation describing when and how service occurred by the close of business on September 9, 2020.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer further stated that, if the withdrawal application proved meritorious, the corporate defendants would have two weeks to obtain successor counsel. If replacement counsel did not appear within that period, the court said it would grant Fini’s motion to withdraw as to all defendants and immediately reinstate the default judgments as to liability against the corporate defendants. The order explained that corporations must be represented by lawyers and cannot represent themselves.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.