Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical (Group) Co., Ltd. v. Hajjar

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedAugust 15, 2023
Docket1:22-cv-08269
StatusUnknown

This text of Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical (Group) Co., Ltd. v. Hajjar (Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical (Group) Co., Ltd. v. Hajjar) 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
Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical (Group) Co., Ltd. v. Hajjar, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SHANGHAI FOSUN PHARMACEUTICAL (GROUP) CO., LTD., Petitioner, 1:22-cv-08269 (JLR) -against- ORDER DR. JOHN HAJJAR, et al., Respondents.

JENNIFER L. ROCHON, United States District Judge: On June 22, 2023, Petitioner Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical (Group) Co., Ltd. submitted a letter alerting the Court that Respondent Dr. John Hajjar, MD (“Hajjar”) had filed Chapter 11 Bankruptcy on June 9, 2023, and this action was therefore automatically stayed as to Hajjar but not as to the remaining two Respondents, Sovereign Medical Services, Inc. (“SMS”) and Sovereign Capital Holdings, LLC (“SCH”). See ECF No. 39. The law firm Frier & Levitt, LLC, as counsel for Respondents, filed a response letter on June 30, 2023. ECF No. 41. On July 5, 2023, Petitioner submitted a second letter stating that Frier & Levitt, LLC was no longer “authorized to represent Hajjar” in this action because it had not obtained the appropriate authorization from the Bankruptcy Court. ECF No. 42. The following day, and apparently prepared before Petitioner’s July 5 letter was filed, the law firm Frier & Levitt, LLC filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record for all Respondents, including Hajjar, SMS, and SCH. See ECF No. 43. On July 17, 2023, the Court granted the motion for Frier & Levitt, LLC to withdraw as counsel of record, subject to the firm first serving the Court’s Order on Respondents and filing a letter with Respondents’ contact information. ECF No. 44. The Court also concluded that SMS and SCH cannot proceed pro se as corporate entities, and therefore ordered SMS and SCH to retain replacement counsel and have counsel file a notice of appearance no later than August 14, 2023. Id. (citing Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 140 (2d Cir. 2007)). No notice of appearance has been filed. “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to

control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83, 96 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal citation omitted). A court may decide, sua sponte and in its discretion, “to stay civil proceedings when the interests of justice seem to require such action.” Plaintiffs #1-21 v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 138 F. Supp. 3d 264, 279 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (internal citation omitted). Here, the present action is already stayed at to Hajjar due to the pending Bankruptcy proceeding. Additionally, the corporate Respondents may not participate in this action at this time because they have not obtained counsel of record. See Lattanzio, 481 F.3d at 140. Therefore, the Court finds that it is in the interests of justice to stay this proceeding to allow SMS

and SCH to obtain replacement counsel. See, e.g., AMA Acquisitions Tr. v. Argent Mortg. Co., LLC, No. 16-cv-00244 (MAD) (TWD), 2016 WL 6068147, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2016) (sua sponte staying action to allow entity “to obtain counsel and have that counsel appear in this action”); Frumusa v. U.S. Bankr. Ct., W. Dist. of New York, No. 09-cv-06539 (CJS), 2010 WL 117759, at *1, 3 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2010) (staying action to allow corporation to retain counsel); LoPorto v. Cty. of Rensselaer, No. 15-cv-00866 (LEK) (DJS), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158297, at *9 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2016) (continuing stay to allow party to obtain replacement counsel); see also Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 556 (2d Cir. 1998) (noting that “[t]he district court judge stayed the action and sua sponte ordered [the] plaintiff [entity] to obtain counsel”). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mark the docket as STAYED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SMS and SCH shall obtain counsel and have counsel file a notice of appearance within the next 45 days. The Clerk of Court is also respectfully directed to mail this Order to Respondents at the following addresses: Sovereign Medical Services, Inc. 85 Harristown Road Glen Rock, NJ 07452-3323 Attn: Dr. John Hajar, M.D. Sovereign Capital Holdings, LLC 85 Harristown Road Glen Rock, NJ 07452-3323 Attn: Dr. John Hajar, M.D. John H. Hajjar, M.D. 90 Hoover Drive Cresskill, NJ 07626 Dated: August 15, 2023 New York, New York SO ORDERED. sas L. ROCHON United States District Judge

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

Related

Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc.
676 F.3d 83 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Iannaccone v. Law
142 F.3d 553 (Second Circuit, 1998)
1-21 v. County of Suffolk
138 F. Supp. 3d 264 (E.D. New York, 2015)
Lattanzio v. Comta
481 F.3d 137 (Second Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical (Group) Co., Ltd. v. Hajjar, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shanghai-fosun-pharmaceutical-group-co-ltd-v-hajjar-nysd-2023.