Order | Filed: August 03, 2026
| Entered: August 03, 2026
AI Visualize Inc. et al v. Puli
Contract: Other | Connecticut
Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney
ORDER denying without prejudice ECF Nos. 77 and 78 (motions to withdraw as counsel), and ordering administrative closure. This case was transferred to the undersigned after it had been pending for nearly three years. See ECF Nos. 1 (July 27, 2022); 73 (July 16, 2025). Because this action had been stayed since April 2023, see ECF No. 38, and it appeared to have been in arbitration since at least early 2024, see ECF No. 41 (Jan. 5, 2024), this court, on March 5, 2026, ordered the parties, by March 19 of this year, to file a joint status report regarding such arbitration, see ECF No. 76.
On March 11, 2026, Attorneys McCormack and Jensen moved to withdraw as defense counsel in this action, reporting that Plaintiffs withdrew their claims in the arbitration in December 2023 and the arbitrator dismissed Mr. Pulis counterclaim in the arbitration in May 2024, such that each such defense lawyer no longer represents the [d]efendant in any arbitration proceeding to which the stay entered on April 3, 2023 applies." See ECF Nos. 77-78. However, the parties joint status report filed on March 19 indicates that on March 10 (one day before the defense motions to withdraw were docketed), Plaintiff filed an arbitration demand with JAMS that was assigned identification number 5425005350. ECF No. 79. This remains the most recent arbitration update provided to the court.
Local Rule 7(e) permits attorneys to move to withdraw as counsel after providing "actual notice of the motion to withdraw," D. Conn. L. R. 7(e), which counsel represents was performed. However, where no successor counsel has appeared and no pro se appearance has been filed, L.R. 7(e) requires "notice... that failure to either engage successor counsel or file a personal appearance will result in the granting of the motion to withdraw and may result in a dismissal or default being entered against the party," before the court may grant the motion. Id. Here, though each movant reports a strained attorney-client relationship and represents having sent the motion to his client, the potential consequences of withdrawal (dismissal or default) do not seem to have been conveyed, and so the motions must be denied without prejudice. Furthermore, the arbitration is now actively pending before JAMS as Plaintiff filed an arbitration demand reviving the arbitration. see ECF No. 79. For all of these reasons, the motions to withdraw are denied without prejudice, and counsel shall remain in place, even if only to advise the court of the status of the arbitration.
Next, the court turns to whether it should dismiss this case. The court finds that it should not. "When a federal court finds that a dispute is subject to arbitration, and a party has requested a stay of the court proceeding pending arbitration, the court does not have discretion to dismiss the suit on the basis that all the claims are subject to arbitration. District courts can, of course, adopt practices to minimize any administrative burden caused by the stays that § 3 requires." Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472, 478 (2024) (referencing 9 U.S.C. § 3).
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is asked to please administratively close this case, without prejudice to either party moving to reopen this case within thirty days of the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. The court sees no reason to keep the case on the court's active docket pending such arbitration proceedings. Car Wash. Advisory LLC v. May, No. 24-CV-8679 (JMF), 2025 LX 192766, *1, *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2025); see also Joseph v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 3:24-cv-1757, 2025 LX 300084, *1, *19 (D. Conn. Aug. 15, 2025).
It is so ordered.
Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 8/3/2026. (KM)