Cruz Santiago v. Thong Sook Corporation
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-05747
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cruz Santiago v. Thong Sook, Judge Torres granted counsel’s withdrawal motion after unsuccessful contact efforts and adjourned pretrial deadlines.
Jaime Cruz Santiago’s lawyers were allowed to withdraw. Santiago must state whether he will retain new counsel or proceed without a lawyer, and the pretrial-submission deadline is postponed.
What happened
In Cruz Santiago v. Thong Sook Corporation, the plaintiff’s lawyers asked to withdraw because they could no longer contact Jaime Cruz Santiago. No party opposed the request.
The lawyers said they tried to reach Santiago by phone, mail, text, emergency contacts, and other known affiliations. They also hired an investigative company, but could not locate him. The court found that the case was not yet ready for trial, so changing counsel was unlikely to cause substantial harm or delay.
Judge Analisa Torres granted the lawyers’ request to withdraw. She ordered Santiago to state by June 1, 2022, whether he had hired new counsel or would proceed without a lawyer. The court also adjourned the deadline for pretrial submissions until a new date could be set.
The detailed version
- Cruz Santiago v. Thong Sook Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-05747
- Analisa Torres
- Apr. 6, 2022
Background
Plaintiff’s counsel, Jarret Bodo and Catalina Sojo of CSM Legal, P.C., moved under Local Civil Rule 1.4 to withdraw as counsel of record for Jaime Cruz Santiago. Counsel stated that they had been unable to contact Santiago. They filed an initial letter motion on March 22, 2022, and a second request on March 31, 2022, supported by Bodo’s affidavit. No party opposed the motion.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that withdrawal requires satisfactory reasons and consideration of the case’s procedural posture. It considered both the reasons for withdrawal and the likely effect on the proceeding’s timing.
Counsel reported repeated efforts to contact Santiago by telephone, mail, text message, emergency contacts, and known personal affiliations. A February 7, 2022 letter warning that counsel would withdraw was returned as undeliverable, and no forwarding address was found. Counsel also hired an investigative company to locate Santiago, without success, and served the withdrawal motion at his last known address. Santiago did not respond.
The court also considered the effect of withdrawal on the case. It had denied the defendants’ summary-judgment motion in August 2021 and had indicated an intention to set a trial during the third quarter of 2022, but no trial date had been set. The parties had not filed their pretrial submissions, so the case was not considered ready for trial. The court found that changing counsel was therefore unlikely to cause substantial prejudice to Santiago.
Ruling and directions
Judge Analisa Torres granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s request to withdraw as counsel of record. The court ordered Santiago to file a letter by June 1, 2022, stating whether he had retained new counsel or intended to proceed without a lawyer. Counsel were directed to serve the order on Santiago by personal service and first-class mail at his last-known address and to file proof of service. The deadline for the parties’ pretrial submissions was adjourned until a date to be set later, after the court determined how Santiago intended to proceed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.