Salibello v. Omnicom Media Group Holdings INC.

S.D. New York

Salibello v. Omnicom Media Group Holdings INC.

DecidedOctober 10, 2024

Docket1:24-cv-04937

StatusUnknown

This text of Salibello v. Omnicom Media Group Holdings INC. (Salibello v. Omnicom Media Group Holdings INC.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Salibello v. Omnicom Media Group Holdings INC., (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MIA SALIBELLO, Plaintiff, No. 24-CV-4937 (LAP) -against- ORDER OMNICOM MEDIA GROUP HOLDINGS, et al., Defendants.

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge: Pursuant to its Order, dated October 1, 2024, (see dkt. no. 17), the Court has received two letters from Plaintiff in the above-captioned case, dated October 2, 2024, and October 7, 2024, regarding her attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel and to assert a charging lien, (see dkt. no. 14). The Court has directed Plaintiff to share with her attorney the letters she shared with the Court. The Court acknowledges that it may grant a motion to withdraw based upon a showing of “satisfactory reasons” supported by an affidavit, which reasons may include a “client’s lack of cooperation—including lack of communication—with counsel, and the existence of irreconcilable conflict between attorney and client.” Ruiz v. Keratin Bar Inc., 2020 WL 7079904, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2020); see also Marciano v. DCH Auto Grp., 2016 WL 11703590, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2016) (same). It may also enforce a charging lien so long as the attorney has not withdrawn without good cause or the client has not terminated the attorney for cause. See Joffe v. King & Spalding LLP, 337 F. Supp. 3d 366, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), aff'd sub nom. Joffe v. Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, P.C., 827 F. App'x 35 (2d Cir. 2020); Ruiz, 2020 WL 7079904, at *3. However, the information provided both by Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel thus far is insufficient to establish whether there exists a lack of cooperation, lack of communication, irreconcilable conflicts, or good cause for the termination of the attorney-client relationship. Accordingly, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel shall appear for a conference in Courtroom 12A at 12:00 p.m. on November 7, 2024, to address the contentions in their respective submissions to the Court. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 10, 2024 New York, New York waitllalh LORETTA A. PRESKA ————— Senior United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MIA SALIBELLO, Plaintiff, No. 24-CV-4937 (LAP) -against- ORDER OMNICOM MEDIA GROUP HOLDINGS, et al., Defendants.

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge: Pursuant to its Order, dated October 1, 2024, (see dkt. no. 17), the Court has received two letters from Plaintiff in the above-captioned case, dated October 2, 2024, and October 7, 2024, regarding her attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel and to assert a charging lien, (see dkt. no. 14). The Court has directed Plaintiff to share with her attorney the letters she shared with the Court. The Court acknowledges that it may grant a motion to withdraw based upon a showing of “satisfactory reasons” supported by an affidavit, which reasons may include a “client’s lack of cooperation—including lack of communication—with counsel, and the existence of irreconcilable conflict between attorney and client.” Ruiz v. Keratin Bar Inc., 2020 WL 7079904, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2020); see also Marciano v. DCH Auto Grp., 2016 WL 11703590, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2016) (same). It may also enforce a charging lien so long as the attorney has not withdrawn without good cause or the client has not terminated the attorney for cause. See Joffe v. King & Spalding LLP, 337 F. Supp. 3d 366, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), aff'd sub nom. Joffe v. Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, P.C., 827 F. App'x 35 (2d Cir. 2020); Ruiz, 2020 WL 7079904, at *3. However, the information provided both by Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel thus far is insufficient to establish whether there exists a lack of cooperation, lack of communication, irreconcilable conflicts, or good cause for the termination of the attorney-client relationship. Accordingly, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel shall appear for a conference in Courtroom 12A at 12:00 p.m. on November 7, 2024, to address the contentions in their respective submissions to the Court. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 10, 2024 New York, New York waitllalh LORETTA A. PRESKA ————— Senior United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Salibello v. Omnicom Media Group Holdings INC., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salibello-v-omnicom-media-group-holdings-inc-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack