Norris v. RPC Restaurant Corp.
- Sarah Cave
- 1:21-cv-08956
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Norris v. RPC Restaurant, Judge Cave ordered M & E Christopher LLC to respond to counsel’s withdrawal motion without deciding it.
M & E Christopher LLC and its counsel, Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP; the order also assigns service and filing responsibilities to attorney Robert P. Floyd III.
What happened
In Norris v. RPC Restaurant Corp., attorney Robert P. Floyd III asked the court to let Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP withdraw as counsel for defendant M & E Christopher LLC. He said M & E had not met its payment obligations and had not provided documents and information needed for discovery.
The court ordered Mr. Floyd to serve M & E with the order by May 28, 2024, and file proof of service. M & E must file a response to the withdrawal motion by June 6, 2024, and Mr. Floyd must make sure any response is filed on the docket.
Judge Sarah L. Cave did not decide the withdrawal motion in this order. She warned that if the motion is granted, M & E’s failure to hire new counsel could lead to a certificate of default and a default judgment because corporations cannot represent themselves in federal court.
The detailed version
- Norris v. RPC Restaurant Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-08956
- Sarah Cave
- May 24, 2024
Background
Attorney Robert P. Floyd III filed a motion on behalf of Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP ("Constangy") seeking permission to withdraw as counsel for defendant M & E Christopher LLC ("M & E"). The motion said M & E had substantially failed to meet its contractual obligations concerning counsel’s services and had failed to provide documents and information needed for discovery. Mr. Floyd served M & E with a copy of the motion.
Court’s Order
To allow the court to rule on the motion, Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered Mr. Floyd to serve M & E with a copy of the order by May 28, 2024, and file proof of service. The court directed M & E to file a response to the motion by June 6, 2024. Mr. Floyd was also directed to ensure that any response from M & E was filed on the docket.
The order did not grant or deny the motion to withdraw. The court advised M & E that corporations cannot proceed without a lawyer. It stated that, if the motion is granted, M & E’s failure to retain new counsel may lead to entry of a certificate of default and a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.