Norris v. RPC Restaurant Corp.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NAMEL NORRIS,

Plaintiff,

-v- CIVIL ACTION NO.: 21 Civ. 8956 (JLR) (SLC)

RPC RESTAURANT CORP. and M & E ORDER CHRISTOPHER LLC,

Defendants. SARAH L. CAVE, United States Magistrate Judge. Attorney Robert P. Floyd III has filed a motion for Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP (“Constangy”) to withdraw as counsel for Defendant M & E Christopher LLC (“M & E”). (ECF No. 82 (the “Motion”)). Mr. Floyd claims that M & E “has substantially failed to fulfill its contractual obligation to its counsel regarding counsel’s services” and “to provide necessary documents and information required for discovery.” (Id. ¶¶ 2). To permit a ruling on the Motion, the Court orders as follows: 1. By May 23, 2024, Mr. Floyd shall: a. File a letter advising whether he, attorney John MacDonald, or Constagy will assert a retaining or charging lien (see Loc. Civ. R. 1.4); b. File proof that M & E was served with the Motion; c. Serve M & E with a copy of this Order and file proof of service on the docket. 2. By June 6, 2024, M & E shall file a response to the Motion. Mr. Floyd is directed to ensure that any response by M & E is filed on the docket. M & E is advised that, by law, corporations cannot proceed pro se. Jacobs v. Pat. Enf’t Fund, Inc., 230 F.3d 565, 568 (2d Cir. 2000). Accordingly, in the event 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. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Dated: New York, New York May 22, 2024 SO ORDERED. Sabletow (SARAH L. CAY United States Magistrate Judge