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 motion, stayed the case, and required corporate plaintiffs to obtain replacement counsel.
Nefertiti Risk Capital Management, LLC, Nefertiti Holding Company, and Nefertiti Asset Management, LLC were affected because their attorney was permitted to withdraw, the case was stayed, and they were required to obtain replacement counsel to continue prosecuting their claims.
What happened
In Kumaran v. Vision Financial Markets, LLC, attorney David Kostus asked to withdraw from representing three corporate plaintiffs: Nefertiti Risk Capital Management, LLC, Nefertiti Holding Company, and Nefertiti Asset Management, LLC.
The court granted the withdrawal request and stayed the case through July 18, 2022, so the corporate plaintiffs could retain replacement counsel. The court said corporate entities must appear through attorneys and warned that it may dismiss their claims for failure to prosecute if no new attorney appeared by that date.
Judge Gregory H. Woods directed new counsel to file a notice of appearance by July 18, 2022, and ordered the clerk to remove Mr. Kostus from the docket as counsel and mark the case stayed. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Kumaran v. Vision Financial Markets, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-03871
- Gregory Woods
- June 18, 2022
Background
Attorney David Kostus moved to withdraw as counsel for Nefertiti Risk Capital Management, LLC, Nefertiti Holding Company, and Nefertiti Asset Management, LLC, which the court collectively called the “Corporate Plaintiffs.” The order states that the court addressed the motion at a conference on June 17, 2022.
Ruling
The court granted Mr. Kostus’s motion to withdraw. It explained that corporate entities must appear in court through counsel, meaning the Corporate Plaintiffs had to retain an attorney if they wished to continue prosecuting the case.
The court stayed the case through July 18, 2022, to allow the Corporate Plaintiffs to obtain replacement counsel. New counsel had to file a notice of appearance by that date. The court stated that, if no attorney appeared for the Corporate Plaintiffs by July 18, it might dismiss their claims for failure to prosecute. If replacement counsel appeared earlier, the stay would be lifted when that attorney filed a notice of appearance.
The court also noted that prior submissions filed by counsel on behalf of the Corporate Plaintiffs had been wholly drafted by Ms. Kumaran, and stated that it expected this issue not to recur with new counsel. The clerk was directed to remove Mr. Kostus from the docket as counsel and indicate that the case was stayed. The order did not resolve the merits of the parties’ claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.