Rivas v. Frank Brusco Maintenance, LLC
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:20-cv-08135
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rivas v. Frank Brusco Maintenance, LLC, Judge Woods denied Plaintiff’s request to avoid an in-person conference and ordered the conference to proceed.
The plaintiff, the defendants, their attorneys, and other conference attendees were affected by the attendance ruling and courthouse-entry requirements.
What happened
In Rivas v. Frank Brusco Maintenance, LLC, the court scheduled a June 7, 2021 conference about Michael K. Chong, LLC’s motion to withdraw as counsel for the defendants.
The plaintiff asked to be excused from attending the conference or to attend by telephone. The court denied that request and expected the plaintiff’s counsel, the remaining parties, and their attorneys to appear in person.
Judge Gregory H. Woods also directed attendees to follow courthouse health protocols and ordered the Clerk to terminate the plaintiff’s pending request.
The detailed version
- Rivas v. Frank Brusco Maintenance, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-08135
- Sarah Netburn
- June 2, 2021
Background
The court scheduled a June 7, 2021 conference concerning Michael K. Chong, LLC’s May 25, 2021 motion to withdraw as counsel of record for the defendants. The conference was set to take place in Courtroom 12C of the Southern District of New York courthouse.
Plaintiff’s Request
The plaintiff asked to be excused from attending the conference or to receive permission to attend by telephone. The opinion does not explain the reasons for that request.
Ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied the request. The court expected the plaintiff’s counsel, the remaining parties, and their attorneys to appear in person on June 7, 2021. The court also described courthouse health procedures related to the coronavirus pandemic, including completion of a questionnaire and temperature screening. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at Docket No. 29.
Disposition
The plaintiff’s request was denied. The opinion did not decide the defendants’ motion to withdraw as counsel; it scheduled a conference concerning that motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.