Murray Paul Farmer and DRC, Inc. v. Rixi Ramona Moncada Godoy, et al.

Summary

The court held Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw in abeyance because counsel remained attorney of record until permitted to withdraw and new counsel appeared. The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time, requiring them to obtain new counsel and respond to the motion to transfer by April 27, 2026; it also explained that the individual plaintiff could proceed pro se but could not represent the corporate plaintiff.

Holdings

1. Counsel's motion to withdraw was held in abeyance because counsel remained obligated to represent plaintiffs until new counsel appeared and the court permitted withdrawal.
2. Plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time was granted, and plaintiffs were ordered to file their response by April 27, 2026.
3. Farmer could represent himself pro se, but he could not represent DRC, Inc. pro se because a corporation must appear through counsel.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs' counsel could withdraw before new counsel appeared.
2. Whether plaintiffs should receive an extension of time to respond to defendants' motion to transfer.
3. Whether Murray Paul Farmer could represent DRC, Inc. pro se.

Disposition

other