Hoffman v. Rattner
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:21-cv-00052
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Hoffman v. Rattner, Judge Kaplan let both lawyers withdraw, kept jurisdiction for sanctions issues, and stayed the case.
Gabrielle Hoffman must proceed without Daniel O’Hara and Jeb Singer unless she obtains new counsel; the case is stayed until May 14, 2021. O’Hara and Singer remain subject to the Court’s jurisdiction for the pending and possible future sanctions motions, and Brett Rattner’s requests for costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees remain relevant.
What happened
In Hoffman v. Rattner, Gabrielle Hoffman’s lawyers asked to withdraw while Brett Rattner sought costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees related to notices that threatened an apartment sale.
The lawyers said the fee and sanction disputes created a conflict between their interests and Hoffman’s. Hoffman wanted to continue the case and preferred that at least one lawyer remain, but the court found a likely conflict involving responsibility for the filing decisions.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted Daniel O’Hara’s and Jeb Singer’s requests to withdraw, while keeping jurisdiction over them for the pending and possible future sanctions motions. He stayed the case until May 14, 2021, so Hoffman could obtain new counsel if she wished.
The detailed version
- Hoffman v. Rattner · No. 1:21-cv-00052
- Lewis Kaplan
- Mar. 19, 2021
Background
Hoffman and Rattner had previously been in a romantic and business relationship and had lived together in an apartment in New York City. After the relationships ended, Hoffman no longer lived there, and Rattner put the apartment up for sale. Hoffman then sued Rattner, principally seeking damages related to their former business relationship, and filed a notice of pendency against the apartment. That filing threatened to interfere with the sale.
Rattner moved to cancel the notice and dismiss the complaint. The parties unsuccessfully discussed canceling the notice, allowing the sale to close, and placing some or all of the sale proceeds in escrow. Hoffman or her lawyers then voluntarily dismissed the original action and filed a substantially similar action in New York Supreme Court. They also filed another notice of pendency against the apartment. Rattner removed the new action to this Court and moved to cancel the second notice.
In an earlier order, the Court canceled the second notice and directed Hoffman to pay costs and expenses caused by filing and canceling it. Rattner then moved for attorney’s fees against Hoffman and against her attorneys, Daniel O’Hara and Jeb Singer. O’Hara and Singer each moved for permission to withdraw as Hoffman’s counsel. Hoffman’s response, filed without a lawyer, indicated that she wanted to continue the case and preferred to keep at least Singer as her attorney. She also opposed requiring the lawyers to pay fees or other monetary sanctions.
Reason for Withdrawal
The Court explained that an irreconcilable conflict between an attorney and client is a satisfactory reason for withdrawal. The fee and sanctions motions created at least a probable, and possibly an actual, conflict between Hoffman and her attorneys because the parties’ responsibility for the costs and expenses was disputed.
Hoffman blamed O’Hara for dismissing the original action and refiling in state court. The Court said this placed Hoffman and probably Singer at odds with O’Hara over responsibility for the costs and expenses. Although Hoffman appeared to object to Singer’s withdrawal, her letter did not address the conflict between herself and Singer. The Court also found that Singer’s role in the events leading to the January 4 filing would necessarily be relevant to assigning responsibility.
Ruling
The Court granted O’Hara’s and Singer’s motions to withdraw as counsel, except that it retained jurisdiction over them for the pending motions and for any future motions under Rule 11 or other sanctions provisions. The order did not end Hoffman’s claims. The Court said Hoffman could obtain new counsel or continue without an attorney.
The Court stayed the action until May 14, 2021, to give Hoffman time to engage new counsel if she wished. It found that withdrawal would not cause substantial delay because the case remained in its preliminary stages. The ruling concerned representation and the management of the pending litigation; it did not decide the underlying claims between Hoffman and Rattner.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.