Zantaz Enterprise Archive Solution v. Health
Zantaz Enterprise Archive Solution, LLC f/k/a Capax Discovery, LLC v. MidMichigan Health
- Rearden
- 1:22-cv-09395
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Zantaz v. MidMichigan Health, Judge Rearden ordered plaintiff’s counsel to report on any lien and the client’s consent to withdrawal.
The order affected Zantaz Enterprise Archive Solution, LLC f/k/a Capax Discovery, LLC, its attorney Robert E. Gallagher, Jr., and the ongoing case. It required counsel to provide additional information but did not decide the withdrawal request in the provided text.
What happened
In Zantaz Enterprise Archive Solution, LLC f/k/a Capax Discovery, LLC v. MidMichigan Health, the plaintiffs’ attorney, Robert E. Gallagher, Jr., asked to withdraw from the case. He said the attorney-client relationship had irretrievably broken down and requested 30 days for the plaintiff to find replacement counsel. He stated that the plaintiff was not opposed if that time were allowed, and opposing counsel did not object.
The court did not grant or deny the withdrawal request in the provided order. Instead, it directed the plaintiff’s counsel to state by February 3, 2023, at 5:00 p.m., whether he intended to assert a retaining or charging lien—a claim for payment from a client or case proceeds—and whether the plaintiff still consented to the withdrawal request.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden issued the order on February 1, 2023, under Local Civil Rule 1.4. The order therefore required additional information but did not state a final ruling on counsel’s withdrawal.
The detailed version
- Zantaz Enterprise Archive Solution v. Health · No. 1:22-cv-09395
- Rearden
- Feb. 1, 2023
Background
Robert E. Gallagher, Jr., identified himself as the attorney of record for the plaintiffs and filed a letter motion seeking permission to withdraw from the action. He stated that the attorney-client relationship was irretrievably broken and that he could not continue providing the representation the plaintiff needed. He also stated that he had discussed the issue with the client’s representatives and decision-makers, who were not opposed to withdrawal if the plaintiff received 30 days to obtain substitute counsel.
Gallagher represented that opposing counsel did not object to the withdrawal request. He said opposing counsel reserved the right to address scheduling and other procedural matters with any replacement attorney. Gallagher also stated that he had notified the client and believed there was good cause for withdrawal.
Court’s Action
The court did not grant or deny the motion to withdraw in the provided text. Citing Local Civil Rule 1.4, the court directed plaintiff’s counsel to state by February 3, 2023, at 5:00 p.m., whether he intended to assert a retaining or charging lien and whether the plaintiff still consented to the withdrawal request. A retaining or charging lien is an attorney’s claimed right to payment from the client or from money connected to the case.
The order was signed by Judge Jennifer H. Rearden and dated February 1, 2023. The provided order does not state what the court ultimately decided about counsel’s withdrawal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.