Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 9, 2021

Coscarelli v. Esquared Hospitality LLC

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:18-cv-05943
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureBankruptcy
In one sentence

In Coscarelli v. Esquared Hospitality, Judge Furman ordered clarification and set deadlines concerning counsel’s withdrawal from representing BCHG.

Who this affects

BC Hospitality Group LLC, its counsel and bankruptcy counsel, and any party responding to the motion to withdraw.

What happened

In Coscarelli v. Esquared Hospitality LLC, counsel for Defendant BC Hospitality Group LLC (BCHG) asked to withdraw from the case.

The court noted that the case is stayed as to BCHG, but BCHG remains a party and must appear through a licensed lawyer. The court ordered counsel to clarify whether bankruptcy counsel would appear for BCHG.

Judge Furman set deadlines for any opposition and reply to the withdrawal motion and required BCHG’s counsel to serve the order and file proof of service. The order did not decide the withdrawal motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Coscarelli v. Esquared Hospitality LLC · No. 1:18-cv-05943
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Apr. 9, 2021

Background

On April 8, 2021, counsel of record for Defendant BC Hospitality Group LLC (BCHG) filed a motion to withdraw. The opinion states that the case is stayed as to BCHG, but BCHG remains a party. It also states that a limited liability company may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel.

Order

The court ordered counsel to clarify by April 12, 2021, whether bankruptcy counsel for BCHG intended to file a notice of appearance. Counsel for BCHG also had to serve a copy of the order on BCHG and its bankruptcy counsel and file proof of service by that date.

The court set April 22, 2021, as the deadline for any opposition to the motion to withdraw, including opposition by BCHG, and April 29, 2021, as the deadline for any reply. The order set briefing and clarification requirements; it did not state that the motion to withdraw was granted or denied.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.