Tang v. Guo
- John Keenan
- 1:17-cv-09031
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Tang v. Guo, Judge Parker granted counsel’s request to withdraw from representing Baiqiao Tang because counsel could not contact him.
Lewis & Lin LLC was permitted to withdraw from representing Baiqiao Tang. Tang was given 30 days to retain new counsel if he chose, while the case conference was scheduled to proceed.
What happened
In Tang v. Guo, Lewis & Lin LLC asked to stop representing Baiqiao Tang because Tang had not responded to repeated calls, emails, or other efforts to reach him. The other plaintiff and the defendants did not oppose the request.
The court found that counsel had a satisfactory reason to withdraw and that doing so was unlikely to substantially disrupt the case. Fact discovery was scheduled to remain open until October 2021, and no trial date had been set.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the request. Tang was given 30 days to hire new counsel if he chose, and Lewis & Lin was ordered to send him the order by email and letter and file proof of service. The March 16, 2021 case conference was to proceed as scheduled.
The detailed version
- Tang v. Guo · No. 1:17-cv-09031
- John Keenan
- Mar. 1, 2021
Background
Lewis & Lin LLC moved under Local Civil Rule 1.4 to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff Baiqiao Tang only. Counsel stated that it had tried repeatedly to contact Tang by leaving voicemails, sending emails to multiple addresses, and attempting to locate his physical location. Counsel also warned Tang that it would withdraw if he did not respond. Tang did not respond. Plaintiff Jing Geng and the defendants did not oppose the motion.
Court’s analysis
Under Local Civil Rule 1.4, the court may allow counsel to withdraw only after finding satisfactory reasons for withdrawal and considering the effect on the case’s timing. The court found the first factor satisfied because counsel had been unable to communicate with Tang despite repeated efforts.
The court also found that withdrawal was unlikely to substantially disrupt the case or prejudice Tang. Fact discovery was not scheduled to close until October 2021, and no trial date had been set. The court therefore found that the second factor also supported withdrawal.
Order
The court granted the request to withdraw as counsel for Baiqiao Tang. Tang had 30 days from the order’s date to retain new counsel, if he chose. Lewis & Lin was directed to serve the order on Tang by email and letter mail as soon as practicable and file proof of service. The court stated that the March 16, 2021 case conference would proceed as scheduled and asked the Clerk of Court to terminate Lewis & Lin’s representation of Tang only.
The conclusion refers to Tang once as “Baigiao Tang,” while the case caption and the rest of the opinion identify him as “Baiqiao Tang.”
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.