Ji v. Aily Foot Relax Station Inc
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-11881
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ji v. Aily Foot Relax Station, Judge Briccetti deferred ruling on counsel’s withdrawal motion and set service and response deadlines.
The defendants and their defense counsel were directly affected, and plaintiff’s counsel had to respond to the withdrawal motion. The order also maintained the existing pretrial and trial schedule.
What happened
In Ji v. Aily Foot Relax Station, defense counsel asked to withdraw from representing the defendants. The court did not decide that request at this time because the filing did not show that the defendants had received it.
The court ordered defense counsel to serve the motion and the order on the defendants and file proof of service by October 28, 2022. The defendants could explain by November 4, 2022, why they did not agree to the withdrawal, and plaintiff’s counsel had to respond by letter by October 28, 2022.
Judge Briccetti warned that the two corporate defendants must have lawyers and could face requests for default judgments if counsel withdrew and they remained unrepresented. The two individual defendants could hire new lawyers or represent themselves, but the scheduled trial would still begin on January 23, 2023, and all other deadlines remained in effect.
The detailed version
- Ji v. Aily Foot Relax Station Inc · No. 7:19-cv-11881
- Vincent Briccetti
- Oct. 21, 2022
Background
On October 20, 2022, defense counsel moved to withdraw from representing the defendants. The opinion does not decide whether counsel would be allowed to withdraw. It states that the motion did not indicate whether the defendants had been served, as required by Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 1.4.
Court’s action
The court deferred ruling on the withdrawal motion. It ordered defense counsel to serve the motion and the order on the defendants and file proof of service by October 28, 2022. If the defendants did not consent to the withdrawal, they had until November 4, 2022, to submit a letter explaining why. Plaintiff’s counsel had to respond to the withdrawal motion by letter of no more than three pages by October 28, 2022.
Representation and scheduling
The court stated that Aily Foot Relax Station, Inc. and Linda Foot Relax Station, Inc., the two corporate defendants, could not appear in federal court without counsel. If the court later granted the withdrawal motion, those companies would have to obtain legal representation, or the plaintiff could be permitted to seek default judgments against them.
The court stated that Xiang Man Zhang and Ke Xue Zheng, the individual defendants, were strongly encouraged but not required to hire new counsel. If counsel withdrew, they would have to represent themselves or obtain new counsel for the remaining proceedings, including pretrial submissions, the final pretrial conference, jury selection, and trial.
The court emphasized that jury selection and trial would begin on January 23, 2023, even if the withdrawal motion were granted. A corporate defendant’s failure to appear through a lawyer could result in a default judgment. An individual defendant’s failure to appear either personally or through a lawyer would not prevent a default judgment or an adverse verdict. All other deadlines remained in effect, including the October 24, 2022 deadline for defense counsel to submit a revised joint pretrial order containing the defendants’ intended exhibit list.
Disposition
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti deferred ruling on defense counsel’s motion to withdraw and issued service, response, representation, and scheduling directives. The opinion does not state whether the motion was later granted or denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.