Kumaran v. Vision Financial Markets, LLC
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-03871
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kumaran v. Vision Financial Markets, Judge Woods granted counsel’s withdrawal, stayed the case, and denied Kumaran’s extension request.
The corporate plaintiffs, Brian August, Kumaran, and the other plaintiffs were affected. The corporate plaintiffs had to obtain replacement counsel, and all plaintiffs received an April 8, 2022 deadline to respond to the transfer order.
What happened
In Kumaran v. Vision Financial Markets, attorney Brian August asked to withdraw from representing three corporate plaintiffs. The court explained that corporations must appear through attorneys and that the corporate plaintiffs would need replacement counsel to continue prosecuting the case.
The court granted the withdrawal request and stayed the case through April 1, 2022, so the corporate plaintiffs could retain new counsel. If no attorney appeared for them by that date, the court said it might dismiss their claims for failure to prosecute. The court also denied Kumaran’s request for more time to respond to an order asking why the case should not be transferred to the District of Connecticut, but extended the response deadline to April 8, 2022.
Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered the clerk to remove Brian August from the docket as counsel and mark the case stayed. The order did not dismiss any claims.
The detailed version
- Kumaran v. Vision Financial Markets, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-03871
- Gregory Woods
- Mar. 2, 2022
Background
Attorney Brian August moved to withdraw as counsel for Nefertiti Risk Capital Management, LLC, Nefertiti Holding Company, and Nefertiti Asset Management, LLC, referred to in the order as the corporate plaintiffs. The court relied on its explanation at a March 1, 2022 conference.
Court’s rulings
The court granted Brian August’s motion to withdraw. It explained that corporate entities must appear in court through counsel and therefore must retain an attorney if they wish to prosecute the case. Replacement counsel was required to file a notice of appearance by April 1, 2022. The court stated that, if no attorney appeared by that date, it might dismiss the corporate plaintiffs’ claims for failure to prosecute.
The court stayed the case through April 1, 2022, to allow the corporate plaintiffs to retain replacement counsel. If they retained new counsel before that date, the stay would be lifted when the new attorney filed a notice of appearance.
The court denied Kumaran’s motion for an extension of time to show cause why the action should not be transferred to the District of Connecticut. Because of the stay, however, the court extended the plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to the order to show cause to April 8, 2022.
Disposition
Judge Gregory H. Woods directed the clerk to terminate the motion at Docket No. 150, remove Brian August from the docket’s list of counsel, and indicate that the case was stayed. The order did not dismiss any claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.