Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 23, 2023

Donoghue v. Gad

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:21-cv-07182
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureSummary Judgment
In one sentence

In Donoghue v. Gad, Judge Failla allowed Gad’s lawyers to withdraw and granted more time for anticipated summary-judgment motions.

Who this affects

Defendant Thomas Gad, whose attorneys were permitted to withdraw; Plaintiff Dennis J. Donoghue, whose request for an extension was granted; and the parties’ anticipated summary-judgment schedule.

What happened

In Donoghue v. Gad, the court granted the application by Kleinberg, Kaplan, Wolff, and Cohen, P.C. to withdraw as Thomas Gad’s counsel. It also granted Dennis J. Donoghue’s request for an extension concerning his opening summary-judgment motion.

The lawyers said Gad had not paid his legal fees for nine months and owed the firm more than $275,000. The court found that nonpayment supported withdrawal and that allowing the lawyers to leave would not cause undue delay because discovery was finished and summary-judgment briefing had not started.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla gave Gad until August 22, 2023, to obtain new counsel. If new counsel did not appear within that period, Gad could proceed without a lawyer. The court also directed Donoghue to propose a new briefing schedule after new counsel appeared and directed the clerk to remove two attorneys from the docket.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Donoghue v. Gad · No. 1:21-cv-07182
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
June 23, 2023

Background

The court considered two applications: Kleinberg, Kaplan, Wolff, and Cohen, P.C. (KKWC) asked to withdraw as counsel for Defendant Thomas Gad, and Plaintiff Dennis J. Donoghue asked for an extension of time related to his opening motion for summary judgment. The court stated that the opening motion was due that day and that the request was connected to Gad’s representation issue.

Counsel’s Withdrawal

Under Local Civil Rule 1.4, an attorney who has appeared for a party may withdraw only with the court’s permission. Courts consider the reason for withdrawal and the effect of withdrawal on the case’s schedule. The decision is within the court’s discretion.

The court found that the relevant factors supported KKWC’s withdrawal. KKWC stated that Gad had failed to pay legal fees for nine months and owed the firm more than $275,000. The court treated nonpayment of legal fees as a valid basis for withdrawal. It also found that any resulting delay would not be unduly harmful because discovery was complete and summary-judgment briefing had not yet begun.

Rulings and Case Schedule

The court granted KKWC’s application to withdraw. It also granted Donoghue’s motion for an extension of time, without stating in this order a specific new deadline for the opening motion.

Gad was given until August 22, 2023, to obtain new counsel. If new counsel did not file a notice of appearance within that 60-day period, Gad could proceed without a lawyer. Donoghue was ordered to file a letter proposing a new schedule for the parties’ anticipated cross-motions for summary judgment within 14 days after Gad’s new counsel filed a notice of appearance. Donoghue was required to consult opposing counsel before filing the letter.

The clerk was directed to terminate Marc Rosen and Alisa Benintendi as Gad’s counsel on the docket and to terminate the motion listed at docket entry 85.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.