Ramgoolie v. Ramgoolie et al

Filing 284

OPINION & ORDER re: 275 FIRST MOTION to Discharge Terry A. Brostowin, filed by Andy Ramgoolie. The motion to withdraw is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to terminate Terry Brostowin as counsel for Defendant and close the motion at ECF No. 275. Defendant shall advise the Court by Wednesday, July 8, 2020, whether he intends to represent himself pro se. If so, Defendant must file a Notice of Pro Se Appearance. Defendant should note that the Court does no t anticipate granting significant extensions of time for Defendant to file any response to Plaintiff's submission concerning damages. In light of the pandemic, parties proceeding pro se may file submissions by email by sending them as PDF attachments, in strict accordance with the policy outlined at nysd.uscourts.gov/prose, to [e-mail]. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 6/24/2020) (ras)

Case 1:16-cv-03345-VEC-SN Document 284 Filed 06/24/20 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------X

6/24/2020

JENNY RAMGOOLIE,
Plaintiff,

16-CV-3345 (VEC)(SN)
OPINION & ORDER

-againstANDY RAMGOOLIE,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
SARAH NETBURN, United States Magistrate Judge:

Terry Brostowin, Esq. moves to withdraw as counsel for defendant Andy Ramgoolie
(“Defendant”). The motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Brostowin has represented Defendant throughout this involved and lengthy breach of
contract case since it started in 2016. Following entry of default against Defendant and the filing
of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by pro se plaintiff Jenny Ramgoolie
(“Plaintiff”), Mr. Brostowin filed a motion to withdraw. ECF No. 275. Plaintiff opposes the
motion. See ECF Nos. 277, 278, 280.
DISCUSSION
Rule 1.4 of the Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Southern and
Eastern Districts of New York governs the withdrawal of counsel. Rule 1.4 provides:
An attorney who has appeared as attorney of record for a party may be relieved or
displaced only by order of the Court and may not withdraw from a case without
leave of the Court granted by order. Such an order may be granted only upon a
showing by affidavit or otherwise of satisfactory reasons for withdrawal or

Case 1:16-cv-03345-VEC-SN Document 284 Filed 06/24/20 Page 2 of 5

displacement and the posture of the case, including its position, if any, on the
calendar, and whether or not the attorney is asserting a retaining or charging lien.
In determining the motion, the court considers both “the reasons for withdrawal and the impact
of the withdrawal on the timing of the proceeding.” Farmer v. Hyde Your Eyes Optical, Inc., 60
F. Supp. 3d 441, 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (citations omitted).
Although there is no clear standard for what may be considered a “satisfactory reason”
for allowing a withdrawal, “a lawyer may seek to withdraw when the client renders it
unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out such employment effectively.” Id. (internal
quotation marks). Under this standard, appropriate reasons for withdrawal include “a client’s
lack of cooperation, including lack of communication with counsel, and the existence of
irreconcilable conflict between attorney and client.” Naguib v. Pub. Health Solutions, 12-cv2561 (ENV)(LB), 2014 WL 2002824, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 15, 2014).
Mr. Brostowin has demonstrated that Defendant failed to cooperate in the defense of his
case, particularly in connection with the damages inquest. Mr. Brostowin attempted to
communicate with Defendant on several occasions, seeking instructions for how to respond to
Plaintiff’s submissions on the pending damages inquest and informing him that payment would
be required for his continued representation. By sworn affidavit, Mr. Brostowin avers that
Defendant’s only responsive communication during the relevant time period was his consent to
Mr. Brostowin’s motion to withdraw. See ECF Nos. 275, 279.
Plaintiff Jenny Ramgoolie objects to Mr. Brostowin’s withdrawal on the ground that
allowing Defendant to proceed pro se or with newly appointed counsel would unduly delay this
litigation, which has already suffered from numerous dilatory tactics at Defendant’s behest. “A
court determining whether to grant a motion to withdraw as counsel may also consider whether
‘the prosecution of the suit is [likely to be] disrupted by the withdrawal of counsel.’” Stair v.
2

Case 1:16-cv-03345-VEC-SN Document 284 Filed 06/24/20 Page 3 of 5

Calhoun, 722 F. Supp. 2d 258, 265 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (quoting Whiting v. Lacara, 187 F.3d 317,
320–21 (2d Cir. 1999)). Discovery has closed, a default has been entered against Defendant, and
Plaintiff has submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in connection with the
damages inquest. Mr. Brostowin’s withdrawal may extend the timeline for resolving the damages
inquest but will not disrupt the proceedings to the point where denial would be warranted,
especially in light of the protracted and contentious nature of the proceedings over the past
several years.
Plaintiff raises additional objections to the motion to withdraw, arguing that (1) she was
never served with a copy of the motion papers; and (2) Mr. Brostowin does not adequately
support his motion because he has not submitted copies of the alleged emails demonstrating
Defendant’s uncooperativeness. These objections are overruled. Plaintiff has consented to
electronic service and had the opportunity to be heard after submitting multiple letters in
opposition to the pending motion. Furthermore, Mr. Brostowin submitted a sworn affidavit under
the penalty of sanctions stating that he did not receive a response from Defendant in regard to the
damages inquest. While Plaintiff argues that Mr. Brostowin has represented Defendant’s
interests recently by withholding consent to her motion to supplement her complaint –
suggesting that Mr. Brostowin has communicated with Defendant – Mr. Brostowin’s position is
that Defendant has been uncooperative in the preparation of a responsive submission on the
damages inquest and has not authorized or paid him to conduct any additional work on his
behalf. Accordingly, the Court finds Mr. Brostowin’s motion to withdraw appropriately granted.
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, the motion to withdraw is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court
is respectfully requested to terminate Terry Brostowin as counsel for Defendant and close the

3

Case 1:16-cv-03345-VEC-SN Document 284 Filed 06/24/20 Page 4 of 5

motion at ECF No. 275. Defendant shall advise the Court by Wednesday, July 8, 2020, whether
he intends to represent himself pro se. If so, Defendant must file a Notice of Pro Se Appearance.
Defendant should note that the Court does not anticipate granting significant extensions of time
for Defendant to file any response to Plaintiff’s submission concerning damages. In light of the
pandemic, parties proceeding pro se may file submissions by email by sending them as PDF
attachments, in strict accordance with the policy outlined at nysd.uscourts.gov/prose, to
[e-mail].
SO ORDERED.

DATED:

June 24, 2020
New York, New York

4

Case 1:16-cv-03345-VEC-SN Document 284 Filed 06/24/20 Page 5 of 5

5