Mahoney v. Yamaha Motor Corp. U.S.A.

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - The Plaintiff Steve Mahoney is directed to appear on July 2, 2012 at 9:00am to show cause why the motion to be relieved as counsel should not be granted. Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendant are also directed to appear. The Plaintiffs Counsel is directed to serve a copy of this Order on the Plaintiff by personal service prior to June 29, 2012. Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 6/27/2012. (Coleman, Laurie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------X
STEVE MAHONEY,
Plaintiff,
-against-

MEMORANDUM OF
DECISION AND ORDER
11-cv-5538(ADS)(AKT)

YAMAHA MOTOR CORP. U.S.A.,
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES:
The Law Offices of Anthony C. Donofrio, PLLC
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
5518 Merrick Road
Massapequa, NY 11758
By:
Arnab Bhukta, Esq., of Counsel
Webster Szanyi, LLP
Attorneys for the Defendant
Webster Szanyi LLP
1400 Liberty Building
Buffalo, NY 14202
By:
Kevin A. Szanyi, Esq.
Kevin Thomas O’Brien, Esq., of Counsel
SPATT, District Judge.
This case was commenced by the Plaintiff against the Defendant Yamaha Motor Corp.
U.S.A. (“Yamaha”) in the New York State Supreme Court, County of Suffolk, Index No.
15607/11, on or about April 15, 2011. The Plaintiff brought several causes of action, including
manufacturing defects, design defects, and negligence, all arising from an alleged accident that
occurred while the Plaintiff was riding a motorcycle manufactured and designed by the
Defendant. On November 14, 2011, Yamaha removed the action to this Court.

On June 18, 2012, the Plaintiff’s Counsel, Arnab Bhukta, Esq., filed a motion to
withdraw from representation of the Plaintiff pursuant to Local Rule 1.4. According to the
Plaintiff’s Counsel, although his client had claimed that he sold the vehicle after the accident, the
Defendant produced evidence that demonstrated that the bike was re-registered to the Plaintiff
seven months after the accident. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s Counsel claims that he obtained the
relevant medical records and they state that his client’s injuries occurred as a result of a fall off a
ladder. Consequently, the Plaintiff agreed to discontinue the matter. However, the Defendant is
unwilling to sign a stipulation of dismissal because they seek to recover fees. In sum, because of
the claimed multiple misrepresentations or half-truths made by the Plaintiff and the unlikelihood
of success if the matter is not discontinued, Bhukta wishes to be relieved as Counsel for the
Plaintiff.
Therefore, the Plaintiff Steve Mahoney is directed to appear on July 2, 2012 at 9:00am to
show cause why the motion to be relieved as counsel should not be granted. Counsel for the
Plaintiff and the Defendant are also directed to appear. The Plaintiff’s Counsel is directed to
serve a copy of this Order on the Plaintiff by personal service prior to June 29, 2012.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
June 27, 2012
____/s/ Arthur D. Spatt_____
ARTHUR D. SPATT
United States District Judge