Elohim EPF USA, Inc. v. 162 D & Y Corp.
- P. Castel
- 1:19-cv-02431
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Elohim EPF USA, Inc. v. 162 D & Y Corp., Judge Aaron ordered service and responses on counsel’s withdrawal motion and warned of possible defaults.
Defendants Karaoke KTV, Inc., Joseph N. Zoino, Eunsik Sun, GS Global Corp., and David Rhee; their current counsel; and the law firm seeking to withdraw.
What happened
In Elohim EPF USA, Inc. v. 162 D & Y Corp., the court addressed the defendants’ lawyers’ motion to withdraw from representing them.
The court ordered the lawyers to mail the motion papers and the order to five defendants by July 7, 2021. The defendants could respond by July 21, 2021. The court warned that the two corporate defendants could not represent themselves and might face a default judgment if their lawyer withdrew and no replacement lawyer appeared. The three individual defendants could represent themselves but still had to follow court orders and deadlines.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron entered the order on July 2, 2021. The order did not decide the underlying claims; it set service and response requirements and warned about possible consequences of failing to obtain counsel or comply with court rules.
The detailed version
- Elohim EPF USA, Inc. v. 162 D & Y Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-02431
- P. Castel
- July 2, 2021
Background
The Law Offices of Kim and Cha LLP filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, along with related papers identified as ECF Nos. 165, 166, and 167. The order concerned service of that motion and the defendants’ opportunity to respond.
Orders Regarding Service and Responses
The court ordered the law firm to serve proof of service for the motion and related papers, together with a copy of the order, on Karaoke KTV, Inc., Joseph N. Zoino, Eunsik Sun, GS Global Corp., and David Rhee. Service had to be made by first-class mail to the defendants’ last known addresses no later than July 7, 2021.
The defendants were required to file any response to their counsel’s withdrawal motion by July 21, 2021. Any defendant filing a response also had to provide a copy to current counsel, who was required to file the response electronically upon receiving it.
Representation and Possible Consequences
The court advised Karaoke KTV, Inc. and GS Global Corp. that corporations cannot appear without a lawyer in the court. If Soo Hyun Kim were permitted to withdraw and no replacement counsel appeared, the court stated that a default judgment might be entered against those corporations.
The court stated that Joseph N. Zoino, Eunsik Sun, and David Rhee could proceed without lawyers. They nevertheless remained required to comply with court orders and deadlines. The court warned that failing to do so could result in sanctions, including a default judgment.
Disposition
The court entered the order requiring service and setting a response deadline. It did not rule on the merits of the underlying dispute or state that the motion to withdraw was granted or denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.