Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 2, 2023

Wilson & Wilson Holdings LLC v. DTH, LLC

Judge
Clarke
Docket
1:22-cv-02941
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Wilson & Wilson Holdings LLC v. DTH, Judge Clarke dismissed the action without prejudice after the LLC failed to retain replacement counsel.

Who this affects

Wilson & Wilson Holdings LLC’s action was dismissed without prejudice after it failed to obtain replacement counsel. The court also terminated all pending motions and closed the case.

What happened

Wilson & Wilson Holdings LLC v. DTH began with the plaintiff’s lawyers asking to withdraw. The court warned the LLC that it could not proceed without a lawyer and that the case could be dismissed if no replacement lawyer appeared.

The lawyers were allowed to withdraw, and the plaintiff was given 30 days to obtain new counsel. That deadline passed without a lawyer appearing for the LLC, and the plaintiff did not contact the court about its plans.

Judge Clarke dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) because the plaintiff failed to follow the court’s orders and failed to prosecute the case. The clerk was directed to end all pending motions and close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Wilson & Wilson Holdings LLC v. DTH, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-02941
Judge
Clarke
Date
Aug. 2, 2023

Background

Plaintiff’s counsel—Joseph Kohn, John Remington, Gabriela Timis, and Kirti Reddy of Quarles & Brady LLP—moved to withdraw on May 19, 2023. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron directed the plaintiff to respond by June 21 and warned that an LLC cannot appear in federal court without counsel. The court also warned that the case could be dismissed if the lawyers withdrew and no replacement counsel appeared.

On June 23, 2023, Magistrate Judge Aaron granted the motion to withdraw because the court had not received a response from the plaintiff. The court ordered the plaintiff to obtain new counsel within 30 days, by July 24, 2023, and repeated that an LLC could not proceed without a lawyer. The deadline passed without successor counsel appearing, and the plaintiff did not file a letter or otherwise communicate with the court about retaining counsel.

Ruling

The court explained that an LLC must be represented by counsel in federal court. It held that dismissal was appropriate because the plaintiff had been repeatedly warned and still failed to appear through counsel. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a court may dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with court rules or orders. Judge Clarke dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b). The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.