Withdrawal of Counsel Permitted Within Just Two Months of Trial in Addition to Charging Lien

Enzo Biochem, Inc., et al. v. Molelcular Probes, Inc., et al.

Case Number: 1:03-cv-3816-RJS (Dkt. 171)

In three related cases, Judge Sullivan granted Enzo’s counsel’s motion to withdraw and ordered that withdrawal would not affect their possession of a charging lien, at an amount to be determined. Judge Sullivan granted counsel’s motion for reasons set forth in a sealed order, but said that a publically docketed, redacted version of that order would be forthcoming, given the presumption of open records as articulated in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).

To minimize the prejudice of unnecessary delay to the opposing parties, Judge Sullivan also ordered a thirty day stay of proceedings in order for Enzo to retain new counsel. When new counsel appears, a trial schedule would be set in two of the related matters, but trial in PerkinElmer  is set to commence on June 30, 2014

Related Documents:

1:03-cv-03817 (Dkt. 252)
1:04-cv-04046 (Dkt. 185)

The articles on our Website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice.