Saenz et al v. City of New York et al

Filing 297

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Magistrate Judge Pollak, dated 11/9/19 in its entirety. Counsel's motion to withdraw as plaintiff's attorney and his request for a charging lien against any settlement or award that plaintiff might receive in pursuing post-verdict remedies is granted. Plaintiff's motion to release the trial transcripts free of charge is denied without prejudice.( Ordered by Judge Allyne R. Ross on 12/22/17 ) (Guzzi, Roseann)

^

OucRK'S OFFICE

"STRICT COURT E.D.N.Y

^ wti;i!6 2017 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

BROOKLYN OFFICE
X

11-CV-3160(ARR)(CLP)

ELI SAMUEL FIGUEROA,also known as Eli Samuel,

NOT FOR ELECTRONIC

Plaintiff,

OR PRINT PUBLICATION

-againstMEMORANDUM &

ORDER

THE CITY OF NEW YORK,et al.
Defendants.
X

ROSS, United States District Judge:

On July 30, 2017, Robert Rambadadt, counsel to plaintiff Eli Figueroa, filed a lettermotion to withdraw as counsel in this case, citing a "severe breakdown in communication and

cooperation between plaintiff and counsel." PL's Mot. at 1, ECF No. 289. He also requested a
one-third charging lien on any post-verdict remedies that the plaintiff might secure on appeal as
well as the release of trial transcripts free of charge for plaintiff. Id. at 2-3. On November 9,

2017, Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak issued a Report and Recommendation("R & R"),

recommending that the motion to withdraw be granted. See R & R at 3, ECF No. 295. She found
that a charging lien was appropriate in this case but declined to recommend a specific percentage
or amount absent further information. Id. She also recommended denying without prejudice the

request for trial transcripts because plaintiff has not applied for informa pauperis status. Id. at 4.
On December 11, 2017,^ plaintiff filed pro se objections to the R & R, specifically asking the
Court to "reconsider and deny" counsel's request for a charging lien on any potential future

' On November 27, 2011, Magistrate Judge Pollak revised the deadline by which plaintiff had to file objections to
December 11, 2017. See "Order setting deadlines as to 295," ECF entry dated November 27, 2017. Therefore,

plaintiff's objections were timely filed despite the fact that more than fourteen days had elapsed since Judge Pollak
issued the R & R.

/s/(ARR)