Bueno v. Buzinover
- Katharine Parker
- 1:22-cv-02216
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Bueno v. Buzinover, Judge Parker granted counsel’s withdrawal but denied a requested stay, requiring the case to continue while new counsel entered.
Rafael Bueno and David Rivera, their withdrawing attorneys, and the remaining defendants. The order allowed the attorneys to withdraw, denied a pause in the case, and required the plaintiffs to proceed on their own until new counsel appeared.
What happened
Bueno v. Buzinover began as a lawsuit by medical-office workers who alleged they were not paid required minimum wages and overtime. By the time of this order, only Rafael Bueno’s and David Rivera’s claims remained, along with counterclaims by some defendants. Their lawyers, Borelli & Associates and Laura R. Reznick, asked to withdraw and requested a 60-day pause so the plaintiffs could find new counsel.
The court found sufficient reasons for the lawyers to withdraw, including the breakdown of the attorney-client relationship, Bueno’s expressed intent to end the representation, and unpaid fees. The court also found that withdrawal was unlikely to seriously disrupt the case because discovery was ongoing, no trial had been scheduled, and the plaintiffs had apparently already retained new counsel.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the motion to withdraw and denied the motion to stay. The lawyers had to turn over the case files by October 23, 2023, and the deadline for discovery-compulsion motions was extended to October 27, 2023. Until new counsel formally appeared, Bueno and Rivera were to represent themselves and meet the case’s deadlines and court requirements.
The detailed version
- Bueno v. Buzinover · No. 1:22-cv-02216
- Katharine Parker
- Oct. 17, 2023
Background
This case was brought by medical-office workers who alleged violations of federal and state minimum-wage and overtime laws. After earlier dismissals and voluntary dismissals, the remaining claims were those of Rafael Bueno and David Rivera against Yan Feldman; Allcity Medical P.C.; Hispanic Medical Health PC; Konstantinos Zarkadas; and K. Zark Medical, P.C. Some defendants also asserted counterclaims against Bueno and Rivera.
Borelli & Associates, P.L.L.C. and Laura R. Reznick moved to withdraw as counsel for Bueno and Rivera. The motion cited Bueno’s intent to terminate the firm’s representation for both plaintiffs, a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, and unpaid fees and expenses. The firm stated that it was not asserting a retaining or charging lien. The plaintiffs requested a 60-day stay to obtain replacement counsel.
Motion to Withdraw
Local Civil Rule 1.4 requires an attorney who has appeared in a case to obtain the court’s permission before withdrawing. The court considered the reasons for withdrawal and the effect withdrawal would have on the case.
The court found all three stated reasons sufficient. It concluded that Bueno had terminated the relationship with the firm on behalf of himself and Rivera and had already engaged new counsel. The court also found that the attorney-client relationship had broken down and that the plaintiffs’ failure to pay their bills supported withdrawal. Because discovery was still ongoing, no trial had been scheduled, and the plaintiffs had apparently retained new counsel, the court found that withdrawal would not particularly disrupt the case.
The court therefore granted the motion to withdraw. Because the firm asserted no lien, it was ordered to turn over the relevant files to the plaintiffs by October 23, 2023, so they could prosecute the case themselves or provide the files to new counsel.
Motion for a Stay
The court recognized that a short stay can sometimes protect a client whose lawyer is withdrawing. It nevertheless found a stay unnecessary here because the plaintiffs had apparently already retained new counsel and had known about the attorney-client relationship’s breakdown since at least September 13, 2023. The court also noted the substantial delays and repeated deadline-extension requests in the case.
The court therefore denied the motion to stay. It extended the deadline for motions to compel discovery to October 27, 2023, but stated that the deadline would not be extended further absent a good-cause showing unrelated to the withdrawal motion.
Effect on Plaintiffs and Further Proceedings
The court directed new counsel to enter an appearance immediately. Until that happened, Bueno and Rivera would be treated as representing themselves and would remain responsible for communicating with the court, meeting deadlines, attending conferences, and participating in discovery. The court scheduled a case-management conference for November 8, 2023, and directed the plaintiffs to attend in person if counsel had not appeared by then. The clerk was directed to terminate the withdrawing attorneys as counsel of record and reflect that the plaintiffs were proceeding without lawyers.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.