New Oriental Enterprise, PTE, Ltd. v. Mission Critical Solutions LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-02327-MKV
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In New Oriental Enterprise v. Mission Critical Solutions, Judge Vyskocil granted defense counsel’s request for a pre-motion conference about withdrawal.
Defense counsel, Mark-Anthony Phillips, Mission Critical Solutions LLC, and the other defendants were affected by the required conference and the court’s ruling that the corporation must appear through licensed counsel.
What happened
New Oriental Enterprise, PTE, Ltd. v. Mission Critical Solutions LLC concerned defense counsel’s request for a conference before filing a motion to withdraw from representing the defendants.
The court granted the request and scheduled the conference for July 5, 2022. Defense counsel, Defendant Mark-Anthony Phillips, and a representative of Mission Critical Solutions LLC were required to attend.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also reiterated that Mission Critical Solutions LLC, as a corporation, could appear in federal court only through licensed counsel and could not represent itself without a lawyer.
The detailed version
- New Oriental Enterprise, PTE, Ltd. v. Mission Critical Solutions LLC · No. 1:20-cv-02327-MKV
- Vyskocil
- May 23, 2022
Background
Defense counsel asked the court to hold a pre-motion conference—a conference held before a party files a motion—in connection with counsel’s planned motion to withdraw from representing the defendants.
Court’s Order
The court granted defense counsel’s request for the pre-motion conference. It ordered all parties to appear at a conference on July 5, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 18C of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse. Defense counsel, Defendant Mark-Anthony Phillips, and a representative of Defendant Mission Critical Solutions LLC were required to attend.
The court also reiterated the rule that a corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel. Therefore, Mission Critical Solutions LLC could not proceed without a lawyer. The order addressed the conference request and corporate representation; it did not rule on whether counsel would ultimately be permitted to withdraw.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.