Castillo v. El San Juan City Island on 5th Ave LLC

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided September 17, 2024·No. 1:21-cv-02824·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED ----------------------------------------------------------------- X

: MERCY CASTILLO, JESSICA LORA, and : ULISES RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all : others similarly situated, : 1:21-cv-2824-GHW Plaintiffs, : : ORDER - against - : : “EL SAN JUAN” CITY ISLAND ON 5TH AVE : LLC, MANUEL VIDAL, and JOSEFINA VIDAL, : : Defendants. : : ----------------------------------------------------------------- X GREGORY H. WOODS, District Judge: On August 29, 2024, counsel for Plaintiff Ulises Rodriguez filed a motion to withdraw. Dkt. No. 149. On September 17, 2024, the Court held a conference to discuss the motion to withdraw. Dkt. No. 152. For the reasons explained on the record during the conference, Mr. Rodriguez’s counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. In addition, the Court will hold two status conferences with respect to this matter by telephone. The first will be held on September 26, 2024 at 1:00 p.m., and the second will be held on October 3, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. The parties are directed to the Court’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, which are available on the Court’s website. Rule 2 of the Court’s Individual Rules contains the dial-in number for the conference and other relevant instructions. Specifically, the parties should call into the Court’s dedicated conference line at (888) 557-8511, and enter Access Code 747-0200, followed by the pound (#) key. The following procedures shall apply to all teleconferences with the Court: Counsel should use a landline whenever possible, should use a headset instead of speakerphone, and must mute themselves whenever they are not speaking to eliminate background noise. In addition, counsel should not use voice-activated systems that do not allow the user to know when someone else is trying to speak at the same time. To facilitate orderly teleconferences and the creation of an accurate transcript where a teleconference is held on the record, counsel are required to identify themselves every time they speak. Counsel should spell any proper names for the court reporter. Counsel should also take special care not to interrupt or speak over one another. ‘The recording of any court conference is prohibited by law. Like in-person conferences, telephone conferences are open to the public. Members of the public or the press may join a telephone conference using the dial-in information above. In addition to counsel, Plaintiff Ulises Rodriguez is ordered to personally attend both the September 26, 2024 conference and the October 3, 2024 conference. “‘[AJll litigants . □ □ have an obligation to comply with court orders,’ and failure to comply may result in sanctions.” Agiwal v. Mid Island Mortg. Corp., 555 F.3d 298, 302 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Minotti v. Lensink, 895 F.2d 100, 103 (2d Cir. 1990)). If Plaintiff Ulises Rodriguez does not attend the conferences, that will result in the Court dismissing his claims against the defendants for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court is directed to: ® remove attorneys Eliseo Cabrera, Katherine Yesenia Morales, Nicola Ciliotta, and Nicole Deanna Grunfeld from the list of active counsel representing Plaintiff Ulises Rodriguez; update Plaintiff Ulises Rodriguez’s address on the docket to: 2245 Bathgate Avenue Apartment B Bronx, NY 10457 mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff Uses Rodriguez at the address listed above.

SO ORDERED. Dated: September 17, 2024 J ; _ i Devee {_ New York, New York GREGORY H. WOODS United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Castillo v. El San Juan City Island on 5th Ave LLC, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Castillo v. El San Juan City Island on 5th Ave LLC (Castillo v. El San Juan City Island on 5th Ave LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Agiwal v. Mid Island Mortgage Corp.
555 F.3d 298 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Minotti v. Lensink
895 F.2d 100 (Second Circuit, 1990)