Geery v. Moviepass Inc.
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:20-cv-00753
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Geery v. Silberstein, Judge Hellerstein denied counsel’s motion to withdraw, without prejudice to renewal after Silberstein’s deposition.
The ruling directly affected Defendant Robert Ellis Silberstein and his attorneys, Kevon Glickman and Paul Verner. It also affected Plaintiff Madison Geery and the timing of the case by keeping the attorneys in place through Silberstein’s scheduled deposition.
What happened
In Geery v. Silberstein, attorneys Kevon Glickman and Paul Verner asked to stop representing Defendant Robert Ellis Silberstein. They said disagreements over strategy, unpaid fees, and Silberstein’s lack of cooperation prevented them from properly representing him.
Plaintiff Madison Geery opposed the request. She said she had spent more than 15 months and substantial resources bringing Silberstein into the case, could contact him only through his lawyers, and faced a deposition scheduled for June 23, 2021.
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the motion without prejudice to renewal after Silberstein’s deposition. He found that allowing the attorneys to withdraw less than two weeks before the deposition would delay the case and interfere with discovery and the Court’s schedule.
The detailed version
- Geery v. Moviepass Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-00753
- Alvin Hellerstein
- June 11, 2021
Background
Kevon Glickman and Paul Verner moved to withdraw as counsel for Defendant Robert Ellis Silberstein. They asserted that Silberstein’s disagreements with their strategic decisions, failure to pay legal fees, and refusal to cooperate made them unable to perform their responsibilities as his attorneys.
Plaintiff Madison Geery opposed the motion. She stated that she had spent more than 15 months and substantial financial resources bringing Silberstein into the action, could not contact him except through his counsel, and faced a remote deposition of Silberstein scheduled for June 23, 2021.
Legal standard
Under Local Civil Rule 1.4 of the Southern District of New York, an attorney who has appeared for a party may withdraw only by court order. The attorney must show satisfactory reasons for withdrawal and provide information about the case’s status. The court has broad discretion and considers both the reasons for withdrawal and its effect on the timing and progress of the case.
Court’s reasoning
The court focused on the effect that withdrawal would have on the case. Glickman and Verner had appeared for Silberstein in March 2021, after Silberstein had obtained several extensions of time, including extensions related to his answer and fact discovery. Because the motion was made less than two weeks before Silberstein’s scheduled deposition, the court found that withdrawal would cause further delay, interfere with the discovery schedule, and burden the court’s management of its calendar.
Disposition
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied Glickman and Verner’s motion to withdraw, without prejudice to renewal after Silberstein’s deposition had been taken. The Clerk was directed to terminate the open motions identified as ECF Nos. 72 and 73.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.