Goldner et al v Norris et al

Filing 30

ORDER: Gerald Fox Law, P.C. (the Firm) and Gerald Fox (together, Counsel) have moved to withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiffs. Counsel state that they can no longer represent Plaintiffs because (1) they no longer have New York licensed attorneys in a New York office at the Firm; (2) they would incur substantial financial hardship if required to continue to represent Plaintiffs; and (3) Counsel and Plaintiffs have fundamental disagreements. ECF No. 25-2. Plaintiffs object to the motion to withd raw. The Court held a hearing on the motion. Counsel did not appear but instead sent a retained attorney (not from the Firm) on its behalf. The retained attorney, unfortunately, had little information regarding the intricacies of this representation and dispute. In particular, Plaintiffs represented that they had already paid the Firm for this representation and so it would be unfair to allow Counsel to withdraw. By February 6, 2024, Counsel is ORDERED to file, ex parte and under seal, its ret ainer agreements and to send Plaintiffs a copy of the same. The Court will review the relevant agreements and to determine whether an ex parte conference with Counsel and Plaintiffs is appropriate. In light of the open questions raised by the Andrews McMeel Defendants, all deadlines are STAYED pending further Order of the Court. SO ORDERED. Case stayed. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 2/5/2024) (dsh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
MARC GOLDNER, GOLDEN BELL
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

23-CV-04078 (PAE)(SN)
ORDER

-againstALEXANDER NORRIS, ANDREWS MCMEEL
UNIVERSAL, LLC, and ANDREWS MCMEEL
PUBLISHING, LLC,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
SARAH NETBURN, United States Magistrate Judge:

Gerald Fox Law, P.C. (the “Firm”) and Gerald Fox (together, “Counsel”) have moved to
withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiffs. Counsel state that they can no longer represent Plaintiffs
because (1) they no longer have New York licensed attorneys in a New York office at the Firm;
(2) they would incur “substantial financial hardship” if required to continue to represent
Plaintiffs; and (3) Counsel and Plaintiffs have fundamental disagreements. ECF No. 25-2.
Plaintiffs object to the motion to withdraw.
The Court held a hearing on the motion. Counsel did not appear but instead sent a
retained attorney (not from the Firm) on its behalf. The retained attorney, unfortunately, had little
information regarding the intricacies of this representation and dispute. In particular, Plaintiffs
represented that they had already paid the Firm for this representation and so it would be unfair
to allow Counsel to withdraw. 1

Separately, Defendants Andrews McMeel Universal and Andrews McMeel Publishing asked whether
the claims against them were going to be narrowed or dismissed, as apparently discussed previously with
Counsel; questions the retained attorney could not answer.
1

1

By February 6, 2024, Counsel is ORDERED to file, ex parte and under seal, its retainer
agreements and to send Plaintiffs a copy of the same. The Court will review the relevant
agreements and to determine whether an ex parte conference with Counsel and Plaintiffs is
appropriate.
In light of the open questions raised by the Andrews McMeel Defendants, all deadlines
are STAYED pending further Order of the Court.
SO ORDERED.

DATED:

SARAH NETBURN
United States Magistrate Judge

February 5, 2024
New York, New York

2