Order | Filed: July 09, 2026
| Entered: July 09, 2026
Nunez Reyes et al v. United States of America et al
Motor Vehicle | New York Eastern
Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney
ORDER re: 48 50 : Just months after appearing in this case, counsel for Plaintiff Uceta Collado, and then counsel for Plaintiff Nunez Reyes, each move to withdraw as counsel for their respective Plaintiffs. The decision to grant a motion to withdraw is left to the sound discretion of the district court. See, e.g., Stair v. Calhoun, 722 F. Supp. 2d 258, 264 (E.D.N.Y. 2010).
Each counsel provides extremely limited justification for their withdrawal, but each motion refers to sections of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct. (See Dkt. No. 48-1 paragraph 5; Dkt. No. 50 p. 3). The attorney for Plaintiff Uceta Collado submits a further ex parte statement which discusses counsel's case assessment of potential litigation risks but does not set forth the nature of the conflict between client and counsel. The ex parte statement does not reference any information or circumstances about which counsel was not already aware at the time he assumed representation in this matter. In the case of both counsel, it is not clear that counsel for either Plaintiff has discussed their concerns with their clients, nor made recommendations regarding these issues, nor whether the client agrees with counsel on those issues.
On the other hand, counsel's entirely conclusory assertion of "limited prejudice" is contradicted by a simple review of the docket sheet in this case, which makes clear that issues related to Plaintiffs' representation have essentially stalled this litigation for almost a year. Such a delay denies all parties, including Plaintiffs, the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of this litigation to which they are entitled per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1. Neither counsel acknowledges, let alone addresses, the prejudice caused by further delay in this context.
Therefore, based on the record before it, the Court finds that the prejudice resulting from the additional delay outweighs the threadbare and conclusory assertions in support of withdrawal. See Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Great Am. Techs., Inc., 07-CV-10694, 2009 WL 4885153, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2009) (denying motion to withdraw when withdrawal would necessarily lead to further delays in the completion of this case and noting that the court had granted at least five discovery extensions); see also Markman v. City of New York, 13-CV-6843, 2015 WL 9462098, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2015) (denying motion to withdraw when "counsel knew or should have known exactly what he was getting into when he agreed to appear in this action, and should not be relieved of that choice simply because the case has gone badly"). Accordingly, the Court DENIES each motion 48 50 to withdraw without prejudice.
If counsel chooses to renew their motion on the same or similar grounds, they shall include a specific showing of the issues that implicate counsel's professional responsibility obligations (if any); when counsel first learned of these issues and why they did not know of them sooner; and a declaration certifying that they have made recommendations to their client regarding these issues, the nature of those recommendations, and the client's response to those recommendations. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Seth D. Eichenholtz on 7/9/2026. (NRH)