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)

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