Chong et al v. Golden 88 Spoon Inc. et al

Filing 104

ORDER: No later than January 11, 2022, defense counsel shall (1) serve his motion to withdraw upon the corporate defendants at their last known address and file proof of service, and (2) serve the individual defendants by traditional methods of servi ce and file proof of service, or, alternatively, show cause why service by traditional means is impractical and why the Court should find that defense counsel properly served the individual defendants by WeChat. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on 1/07/2022) (ama)

Case 1:16-cv-05591-ALC Document 104 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

1/7/2022

SHEK MOOI CHONG, individually and on
behalf of all other employees similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
-against-

16-cv-05591 (ALC)
ORDER

GOLDEN 88 SPOON INC. ET AL.,
Defendants.
ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., United States District Judge:
At the status conference held on December 1, 2021, defense counsel informed the Court of
a recent conflict of interest that arose in his representation of Defendants. In letters dated December
8, 2021, and December 16, 2021, defense counsel noted his intent to file a motion to withdraw as
counsel. ECF Nos. 100, 102. On December 17, 2021, the Court ordered defense counsel to file his
motion to withdraw. Dec. 17, 2021 Minute Entry. Defense counsel filed his motion to withdraw
on December 22, 2021. ECF No. 103.
Defense counsel states that the motion was served on the individual defendants “via
Wechat chatting software” and makes no mention of service upon the corporate defendants. ECF
No. 103 at 3. Local Civil Rule 1.4 requires the application to withdraw “be served upon the
client.” Local Civ. R. 1.4. Defense counsel represents all defendants, including the corporate
defendants (Golden 88 Spoon Inc. and TJ Prime Inc.). No later than January 11, 2022, defense
counsel shall (1) serve his motion to withdraw upon the corporate defendants at their last known
address and file proof of service, and (2) serve the individual defendants by traditional methods
of service and file proof of service, or, alternatively, show cause why service by traditional
means is impractical and why the Court should find that defense counsel properly served the
individual defendants by WeChat.

Case 1:16-cv-05591-ALC Document 104 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 2

SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2022
New York, New York

___________________________________
ANDREW L. CARTER, JR.
United States District Judge

2