Wilson & Wilson Holdings LLC v. DTH, LLC
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:22-cv-02941
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Wilson & Wilson Holdings LLC v. DTH, Judge Aaron set a deadline to respond to counsel’s withdrawal motion and warned of possible dismissal.
Wilson & Wilson Holdings LLC and its counsel at Quarles & Brady LLP; the order also sets requirements affecting the progression of the case.
What happened
In Wilson & Wilson Holdings LLC v. DTH, LLC, the plaintiff’s lawyers asked permission to withdraw from representing the plaintiff. The order does not decide whether they may withdraw.
The court ordered the plaintiff to respond by June 21, 2023, and required Quarles & Brady LLP to serve the order by May 25 and file proof of service. The court also postponed the deadlines in its May 15, 2023 order indefinitely.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron warned that an LLC cannot represent itself without a lawyer in the court. If the lawyers are allowed to withdraw and no replacement lawyer appears, the case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Wilson & Wilson Holdings LLC v. DTH, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-02941
- Stewart Aaron
- May 22, 2023
What the Order Does
The order addresses a motion by Joseph Kohn, John Remmington, Gabriela Timis, and Kirti Reddy of Quarles & Brady LLP to withdraw as counsel for Wilson & Wilson Holdings LLC. The court did not rule on whether the lawyers may withdraw. Instead, it set deadlines for the plaintiff’s response.
Deadlines
The plaintiff must serve any response to the withdrawal motion no later than June 21, 2023, and must provide a copy to Quarles & Brady. Quarles & Brady must file the response on the electronic docket immediately after receiving it. By May 25, 2023, Quarles & Brady must serve the order on the plaintiff and file proof of service. The deadlines in the court’s May 15, 2023 order were postponed indefinitely.
Warning About Representation
Judge Stewart D. Aaron advised that an LLC cannot appear without a lawyer in the court. The order states that if Quarles & Brady is permitted to withdraw and no replacement counsel appears, the plaintiff’s case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to continue pursuing the case. The order does not state that the case was dismissed or that the withdrawal motion was granted or denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.