Alvarez Chicas v. Kelco Construction, Inc.
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:21-cv-09014
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Alvarez Chicas v. Kelco Construction, Judge Aaron granted counsel’s withdrawal motion after finding satisfactory reasons, while the case continued.
Attorney Steven J. Moser and all six named plaintiffs were directly affected because Moser was permitted to withdraw. The plaintiffs remained obligated to follow court orders and deadlines, and the defendants could later seek deposition-related costs through a separate motion.
What happened
In Alvarez Chicas v. Kelco Construction, Inc., attorney Steven J. Moser asked to stop representing all six named plaintiffs. He said trust in the attorney-client relationship had been damaged and identified potential conflicts involving Carlos Alvarez Chicas and the plaintiffs who worked for E.L.M. General Construction Corp. He also reported that Edwin Ulloa Moreira no longer wanted to participate.
No plaintiff filed an opposition to the request, and the defendants said they did not oppose it. The court found that Moser had shown satisfactory reasons for withdrawal under the court’s local rule and granted his motion. The underlying wage case was not dismissed by this order.
Judge Aaron advised the plaintiffs that they could obtain new lawyers or represent themselves, but they still had to follow court orders and deadlines. The court also required Moser to serve the order and a Spanish translation, provide the plaintiffs’ last known contact information, and remain on the electronic docket while the defendants considered a possible request for deposition-related costs.
The detailed version
- Alvarez Chicas v. Kelco Construction, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-09014
- Stewart Aaron
- Apr. 26, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs brought a putative class and collective action against Kelco Construction, Inc., E.L.M. General Construction Corp., John Kelly, Joseph Provenzano, and later Kelco Landscaping, Inc. The complaint sought, among other things, overtime and prevailing wages. The case had proceeded through several amended complaints, conditional certification of Fair Labor Standards Act collective claims, later decertification of that collective, and dismissal of the prevailing-wage contract claim with permission to replead. The plaintiffs ultimately chose not to replead that claim.
Attorney Steven J. Moser filed a letter motion under Local Civil Rule 1.4 seeking permission to withdraw as counsel for all plaintiffs. He stated that trust in the attorney-client relationship had been damaged, that there was a potential conflict between Carlos Alvarez Chicas and plaintiffs who had worked for E.L.M. General Construction Corp., and that there was a potential conflict between Alvarez Chicas and Moser. Moser also disclosed that Edwin Ulloa Moreira had said he was no longer interested in the case and did not want to participate.
The court gave the plaintiffs an opportunity to oppose the motion, including by providing Spanish translations of the relevant order. No plaintiff filed opposition. The defendants stated that they did not oppose Moser’s withdrawal. They separately asked the court to require Moser to identify the plaintiff who had lost interest in the case; the court noted that Moser had already made that disclosure. The defendants also sought recovery of costs related to depositions that plaintiffs allegedly failed to attend, but the court stated that issue remained unresolved and directed defendants to file a separate motion under Rule 37(d) if they wished to pursue it.
Legal Standard
Local Civil Rule 1.4 requires an attorney who has appeared for a party to obtain a court order before withdrawing. The court may allow withdrawal when the attorney shows satisfactory reasons and addresses the posture of the case and any retaining or charging lien. The court has discretion to decide whether to grant or deny withdrawal. Examples of satisfactory reasons include an acrimonious attorney-client relationship or an irreconcilable conflict between attorney and client.
Ruling
The court found, in its discretion, that Moser had shown satisfactory reasons for withdrawal. It therefore granted his letter motion to withdraw. This order did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ wage claims or dismiss the case.
The plaintiffs were told that they could obtain new counsel or appear without lawyers, but they remained responsible for complying with court orders and deadlines. The court warned that failure to do so could lead to sanctions, including dismissal for failure to prosecute. Each plaintiff also had an independent duty to keep the court informed of his address and any changes.
The court required Moser to serve each plaintiff with the order and a Spanish translation and file proof of service by May 1, 2024. Moser also had to provide the court with each plaintiff’s last known address and contact information. The court retained jurisdiction over Moser concerning any Rule 37(d) motion the defendants filed by May 10, 2024, so Moser was not immediately terminated from the electronic docket. The parties were ordered to attend a telephone conference on May 29, 2024, to discuss the case’s status.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.