Frio Energy Partners, LLC v. Finance Technology Leverage, LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-09766
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Frio Energy Partners v. Finance Technology Leverage, Judge Liman granted both defense firms’ withdrawal motions and stayed proceedings while the corporate defendant obtains counsel.
Finance Technology Leverage, LLC, its withdrawing law firms, and the parties’ case schedule were affected. The corporate defendant must obtain successor counsel to continue litigating the case.
What happened
Frio Energy Partners, LLC v. Finance Technology Leverage, LLC involved motions by both law firms representing the corporate defendant to withdraw as counsel. The court held a conference on the motions on January 10, 2024, with the parties’ lawyers and representatives present.
The court found that each firm had satisfactory reasons to withdraw. Discovery was complete, and the plaintiff did not oppose a short delay while the defendant obtained new counsel. One firm asserted a retaining lien; the other did not. The court warned that the corporation could not litigate without a lawyer and that failing to obtain counsel could lead to a default judgment.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted both withdrawal motions. The case was stayed, all pending deadlines were suspended, and previously scheduled conferences were canceled while the defendant obtained successor counsel. The court scheduled a telephone conference for February 16, 2024, to discuss new dates for dispositive motions and trial.
The detailed version
- Frio Energy Partners, LLC v. Finance Technology Leverage, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09766
- Lewis Liman
- Jan. 10, 2024
Background
The court considered motions to withdraw as counsel filed by both law firms representing corporate Defendant Finance Technology Leverage, LLC. The court held a conference on January 10, 2024, attended by counsel for Plaintiff, both defense firms, and representatives of Defendant.
Ruling on Withdrawal
The court granted both motions. It found that each law firm had shown “satisfactory reasons for withdrawal” under Local Civil Rule 1.4. The court noted that withdrawing all defense counsel would cause some delay concerning dispositive motions and trial, but would not affect discovery because discovery was complete. Plaintiff did not oppose a short stay to give Defendant time to obtain successor counsel and did not identify prejudice from a short delay.
Klein, Hockel, lezza & Patel, P.C. asserted a retaining lien. Halperin, Battaglia, Benzija, LLP did not assert one.
Effect on the Case
The court advised Defendant that a corporation may not litigate a case without an attorney. It warned that withdrawal of counsel could result in a default judgment against Defendant if it repeatedly failed to appear through counsel.
The court ordered the case stayed in the interim. All pending deadlines were suspended, and previously scheduled conferences were canceled. The court scheduled a telephone conference for February 16, 2024, to discuss new dates for dispositive motions and trial. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the withdrawal motions at Dkt. Nos. 63 and 65 and close Defendant’s letter motion to adjourn the previously scheduled January 18, 2024 conference at Dkt. No. 62.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.