Nunez Rodriguez v. Veneca Parking Corp.

Background

Junior Agustin Nunez Rodriguez sued Veneca Parking Corporation, Juan Sanchez, and John Doe, also known as “Jay,” alleging violations of federal and state wage laws, including the minimum-wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the overtime provisions of New York Labor Law. The defendants did not appear, and the Clerk of Court entered certificates of default against each of them.

Nunez Rodriguez later moved for a judgment based on the defendants’ failure to appear, but the Clerk terminated the motion as deficient. After notices and court orders directing him to refile the motion correctly, he did not do so. On December 14, 2020, his attorney, Lawrence F. Morrison, instead moved to withdraw from the case.

Reasoning

Morrison stated that Nunez Rodriguez had been unresponsive to the firm’s communications, including phone calls and messages, for at least one year. Morrison’s later affidavit confirmed that he had been unable to communicate with Nunez Rodriguez since the filing of the deficient motion. Morrison also stated that a former client had told him that Nunez Rodriguez and a defendant were discussing a possible cash settlement, and that Morrison did not believe he could properly refile the motion without communicating with his client.

The court applied Local Civil Rule 1.4, which requires court permission for an attorney to withdraw and allows withdrawal when there is a satisfactory reason. The court determined that the extended lack of communication was a satisfactory reason. It also considered the case’s posture and concluded that withdrawal would not further disrupt the case or prejudice Nunez Rodriguez because no discovery had occurred, the case was not scheduled for trial, and the case had been stagnant for more than a year.

Morrison asserted a charging lien, which is a potential claim for payment from a recovery in the case, but did not assert a retaining lien. The court stated that the record was not sufficient to decide whether Morrison had shown the required good cause for a charging lien. It therefore reserved judgment and did not decide any issue concerning attorney’s fees.

Order

The court granted Morrison’s motion to withdraw and directed the Clerk to terminate Morrison’s representation on the electronic docket and terminate the motion. Morrison was directed to serve the order on Nunez Rodriguez. Nunez Rodriguez was ordered to inform the court in writing by March 5, 2021, whether he intended to proceed without a lawyer or seek new representation.

The court did not dismiss the case in this order. It warned, however, that failure to comply with the order would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order also noted Nunez Rodriguez’s earlier failures to comply with court orders.