Pintur et al v. Rogic et al

Filing 61

ORDER: Adopting REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 60 Report and Recommendations. Having reviewed Magistrate Judge Parkers thorough and well-reasoned Report, to which no objection has been made, the Court finds no clear error. Therefore, the Court ad opts the Report in its entirety. Accordingly, Ms. Franklin's pro hac vice admission is revoked and Plaintiffs are directed to obtain new counsel within 45 days, except to the extent that Plaintiff Mladen Pintur wishes to proceed pro se with resp ect to his individual claims. If Mr. Pintur wishes to do so, he must file a notice of appearance on the public docket within two weeks of this order, or by Friday, December 1, 2017. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. This Order resolves Docket Entry No. 60. SO ORDERED., Attorney Tamiko Rochelle Franklin terminated. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 11/16/2017) (ama)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------x MLADEN PINTUR and PRESENTA NOVA INC., Plaintiffs, -v- No. 16-CV-9696-LTS-KHP HELEN ROGIC and ONE INTERIOR LLC, Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------x ORDER On September 26, 2017, Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker ordered Plaintiffs’ counsel, Ms. Tamiko Franklin, to show cause as to why her admission to appear before this Court pro hac vice should not be revoked. (Docket Entry No. 55.) On October 24, 2017, Judge Parker issued a Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) recommending that Ms. Franklin’s pro hac vice admission be revoked and that Plaintiffs be directed to obtain new counsel within 45 days, except to the extent that Plaintiff Mladen Pintur wishes to proceed pro se with respect to his individual claims. No objections to the Report have been filed by either party. When reviewing a report and recommendation, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C.S. § 636(b)(1) (C) (LexisNexis 2016). “To accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate, to which no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Wilds v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). ORDER ADOPTING R&R RE FRANKLIN PHV VERSION NOVEMBER 16, 2017 1 Having reviewed Magistrate Judge Parker’s thorough and well-reasoned Report, to which no objection has been made, the Court finds no clear error. Therefore, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety. Accordingly, Ms. Franklin’s pro hac vice admission is revoked and Plaintiffs are directed to obtain new counsel within 45 days, except to the extent that Plaintiff Mladen Pintur wishes to proceed pro se with respect to his individual claims. If Mr. Pintur wishes to do so, he must file a notice of appearance on the public docket within two weeks of this order, or by Friday, December 1, 2017. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. This Order resolves Docket Entry No. 60. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York November 16, 2017 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN United States District Judge ORDER ADOPTING R&R RE FRANKLIN PHV VERSION NOVEMBER 16, 2017 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?