Charles v. Pinnacle Too, LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-04232
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Charles v. Pinnacle Too, LLC, Judge Furman set deadlines for opposing counsel’s withdrawal motion and warned defendants about replacing counsel.
The defendants, their current attorneys, and Dexlon Charles are affected by the deadlines and continuing-representation requirements. The order also warns the individual and entity defendants about the consequences of failing to obtain counsel if withdrawal is granted.
What happened
In Charles v. Pinnacle Too, LLC, defense counsel asked to withdraw from representing the defendants. The court set January 18, 2023, as the deadline for opposition and January 22, 2023, as the deadline for any reply.
Until the court grants the withdrawal request, the listed attorneys remain counsel of record and discovery must continue as scheduled. The court told the defendants to begin finding new counsel in case the request is granted.
Judge Jesse M. Furman warned that individual defendants could be treated as representing themselves, while the three defendant companies could be treated as in default if they do not obtain counsel. The court also required defense counsel to serve the order on the defendants and file proof of service within two days.
The detailed version
- Charles v. Pinnacle Too, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-04232
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 10, 2023
Background
On January 9, 2023, counsel for the defendants filed a motion to withdraw as their attorneys. The opinion does not decide that motion.
Deadlines and continuing representation
The court ordered that any opposition from the defendants or Dexlon Charles must be filed by January 18, 2023, and that any reply must be filed by January 22, 2023. Unless and until the court grants the withdrawal motion, John K. Diviney, Kenneth A. Novikoff, and Greg Eric Mann remain counsel of record for the defendants. Discovery must proceed as scheduled.
Warnings to the defendants
The court advised the defendants to begin identifying new counsel. If the withdrawal motion is granted, the court stated that it will give the defendants only a limited time to obtain new counsel. The individual defendants could then be treated as proceeding without lawyers, and the three entity defendants could be treated as in default. The court cited appellate decisions stating that a company may appear in federal court only through a lawyer and that failing to obtain counsel may result in default.
Order
The court directed defense counsel to serve a copy of the order on the defendants within two days and file proof of service on the docket. Judge Jesse M. Furman did not grant or deny the motion to withdraw in this order; he set briefing deadlines and maintained the existing counsel and discovery arrangements pending further action.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.