Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v…
Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. NYC Flooring L.L.C.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-06441-LJL
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Trustees v. NYC Flooring, Judge Liman denied defense counsel’s withdrawal request without prejudice because withdrawal would disrupt discovery and prejudice plaintiffs.
The ruling directly affected the defendants and their law firm, because counsel had to remain in the case for the time being. It also affected the plaintiffs by addressing the timing of their pending discovery-sanctions motion and the court’s concern about further delay.
What happened
In Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. NYC Flooring L.L.C., the defendants’ law firm asked to stop representing the defendants. The firm showed that the clients had not paid its fees.
The court recognized that nonpayment was a valid reason to withdraw. But the plaintiffs had a pending motion seeking discovery sanctions, based on alleged failures by the defendants to provide discovery, sometimes in violation of court orders. Allowing the lawyers to leave before responding to that motion would disrupt the case, leave the defendants without lawyers at a critical stage, and further delay the plaintiffs.
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the withdrawal request without prejudice. Defense counsel agreed to respond to the sanctions motion by October 21, 2020, and the plaintiffs could reply by October 28, 2020. Counsel could renew the request on or after October 21, and the court stated that it would grant it unless circumstances changed. The court also warned that the corporate defendants could not litigate without lawyers and might face a default judgment if they failed to obtain counsel.
The detailed version
- Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v… · No. 1:19-cv-06441-LJL
- Lewis Liman
- Oct. 7, 2020
Background
The law firm representing NYC Flooring, L.L.C., KNF Renovations, L.L.C., Salvatore Marzella, Frank Lioy, Sherie Lioy, and Dena Pattakos moved to withdraw as their counsel. The court considered the request under Southern District of New York Local Rule 1.4, which requires a lawyer to obtain the court’s permission before withdrawing and to show a satisfactory reason.
Reasoning
The firm showed that its clients had failed to pay fees. The court stated that nonpayment is a satisfactory reason for withdrawal. However, withdrawal would disrupt the orderly handling of the case and prejudice the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had already filed a pending motion for discovery sanctions. That motion described alleged failures by the defendants to provide discovery within the deadlines in the case-management plan, including failures that allegedly violated court orders.
The court concluded that allowing withdrawal before the defendants responded to the sanctions motion would leave the defendants without counsel during a critical stage, deprive the court and the parties of the involved lawyer’s knowledge of the discovery discussions, and delay the plaintiffs’ efforts to move the case forward.
Ruling
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion to withdraw without prejudice. At the conference on October 7, 2020, defense counsel agreed to respond to the sanctions motion by October 21, 2020. The plaintiffs could reply by October 28, 2020. The court permitted defense counsel to renew the withdrawal request on or after October 21 and stated that, unless circumstances changed, it would grant the renewed request.
The court scheduled a status conference for November 23, 2020. It advised the corporate defendants that they could not litigate without attorneys. If they failed to secure counsel who appeared for them, including at the status conference, the court stated that a default judgment might be entered against them.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.