Abraham v. Leigh et al

Filing 677

ORDER granting 675 Motion re: 675 MOTION to Continue and Reschedule Ex Parte scheduled April 15 2022 Order Scheduled Telephone Hearing for April 19 2022 on Sobel Motion to Withdraw . With that said, the Court understands that P laintiff is unable to attend the conference scheduled for April 19, 2022. As such, this conference is hereby ADJOURNED sine die. In arriving at a mutually agreeable time for this conference, the Court is willing to rearrange its calendar on the afte rnoon of April 25, 2022. Accordingly, Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, and Defense counsel are ORDERED to immediately advise the Court of their availability on the afternoon of April 25, 2022 by email sent to the chambers inbox (Failla_NYSDCha mbers@nysd.uscourts.gov). Apart from the scheduling email just described, Plaintiff shall not direct any further correspondence to the Court, in circumvention of her existing attorney-client relationship. The Court wishes to underscore that this adjournment in no way seeks to minimize the urgency of Plaintiff's counsel's motion to withdraw, in light of the upcoming trial date in this matter. Plaintiff's counsel has presented serious allegations in support of his motion. Plaintiff would be well-advised to continue her search for replacement counsel in the interim. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 675. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 4/18/2022) (rro)

Download PDF
Case 1:17-cv-05429-KPF Document 677 Filed 04/18/22 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ROBYN ABRAHAM, Plaintiff, -v.- 17 Civ. 5429 (KPF) ABBY LEIGH, in her Individual Capacity and as Executrix of the Estate of Mitch Leigh, the Viola fund, Abby Leigh Ltd, ORDER Defendant. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s motion requesting an adjournment of the conference currently scheduled for April 19, 2022, regarding Plaintiff’s counsel’s pending motion to withdraw as counsel in this case. (Dkt. #675). As an initial matter, the Court does not accept many of the factual representations contained in Plaintiff’s submission, including that her counsel’s motion to withdraw is “contrived,” “unprovoked factually,” and “legally devoid.” Furthermore, Plaintiff is incorrect in characterizing the Court’s earlier correspondence as ex parte. At this point, she remains counseled in this matter, which means that no communication including both Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s legal representatives can be characterized as ex parte. With that said, the Court understands that Plaintiff is unable to attend the conference scheduled for April 19, 2022. As such, this conference is hereby ADJOURNED sine die. In arriving at a mutually agreeable time for this conference, the Court is willing to rearrange its calendar on the afternoon of April 25, 2022. Accordingly, Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s counsel, and Defense counsel Case 1:17-cv-05429-KPF Document 677 Filed 04/18/22 Page 2 of 2 are ORDERED to immediately advise the Court of their availability on the afternoon of April 25, 2022 by email sent to the chambers inbox (Failla_NYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov). Apart from the scheduling email just described, Plaintiff shall not direct any further correspondence to the Court, in circumvention of her existing attorney-client relationship. The Court wishes to underscore that this adjournment in no way seeks to minimize the urgency of Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw, in light of the upcoming trial date in this matter. Plaintiff’s counsel has presented serious allegations in support of his motion. Plaintiff would be well-advised to continue her search for replacement counsel in the interim. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 675. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 18, 2022 New York, New York KATHERINE POLK FAILLA United States District Judge 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?