[00:00:00] Speaker 02: decision promptly. [00:00:03] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:00:04] Speaker 02: Madam Clerk, would you call the next case? [00:00:08] Speaker 02: Finray Miamni Sports Limited, AJ Kung, appearing for appellants. [00:00:15] Speaker 02: Good morning, Ms. [00:00:16] Speaker 02: Kung. [00:00:17] Speaker 00: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:00:18] Speaker 00: May it please the Court, I am AJ Kung and I am both [00:00:21] Speaker 00: Council and appellant today. [00:00:22] Speaker 00: As set forth in my brief, this arises out of my motion to withdraw. [00:00:27] Speaker 00: I don't wanna belabor the point. [00:00:29] Speaker 00: The brief was short and your honors are always well read. [00:00:34] Speaker 00: Just to highlight, I was originally retained by Miamni Sports Limited, which is a UK company. [00:00:41] Speaker 00: They were brought into proceedings in the United States via an adversary action from another related bankruptcy in a matter entitled Miamni Gaming. [00:00:50] Speaker 00: As a result, they commenced liquidation proceedings under UK law. [00:00:55] Speaker 00: They have always been a UK corporation, though registered as a foreign corporation in Nevada. [00:01:01] Speaker 00: I was retained to commence a Chapter 15 proceeding, which I did in April of 2024. [00:01:08] Speaker 00: In mid-November, I was instructed by my clients, who were the liquidators and the foreign representatives, that they were winding down. [00:01:15] Speaker 00: They instructed me to terminate representation and withdraw from the case. [00:01:20] Speaker 00: In compliance with their instructions, I filed my motion to withdraw an order shortening time. [00:01:25] Speaker 00: I reached out to opposing counsel in the adversary matter who had no objection. [00:01:29] Speaker 00: That motion to withdraw was filed on November 26th, 2024. [00:01:35] Speaker 00: The order shortening time was never granted. [00:01:38] Speaker 00: A hearing was never set. [00:01:39] Speaker 00: On December 5th, I received an order from the court denying my withdrawal. [00:01:44] Speaker 00: And four days later, an order denying my request for order shortening time. [00:01:48] Speaker 00: The order denying my withdrawal was short. [00:01:52] Speaker 00: I gleaned from that order that the reason that my withdrawal was denied was because the debtor entity did not seek to close the case and there was no information provided for new counsel. [00:02:08] Speaker 00: The court cited to the one Tradex case, which case stood for the proposition that once the case has been fully administered, it should be closed. [00:02:17] Speaker 00: I then reached out to my [00:02:18] Speaker 00: clients to ask permission to seek to close the case, notwithstanding the fact that I did not believe it was appropriate to seek to close the case because the matter had not been fully administered. [00:02:30] Speaker 00: The primary litigation that adversary was pending then remains pending now, still has not been resolved, and the UK liquidation proceedings had not been completed at the time that I sought to withdraw. [00:02:42] Speaker 00: Subsequently, the UK proceedings were completed in December 18th, [00:02:46] Speaker 00: The clients advised me that I was not authorized to seek to close the case. [00:02:51] Speaker 00: And as a matter of fact, they could not authorize me to take any further action, which led me with no further recourse, but to file the appeal. [00:02:59] Speaker 01: I believe- Let me ask you, Ms. [00:03:01] Speaker 01: Cunn. [00:03:02] Speaker 01: The order denying your withdrawal as counsel was without prejudice. [00:03:06] Speaker 01: And certain things have happened. [00:03:11] Speaker 01: You know, UK matters done. [00:03:15] Speaker 01: you say your only recourse was to file the appeal. [00:03:18] Speaker 01: With the changed circumstances, couldn't you, without shortening time, file another motion asking the court to allow you to withdraw because the circumstances have changed, the UK matter is done, and point out to the court that you're not authorized to do anything more anyway, and so under the circumstances, [00:03:44] Speaker 01: and you're not authorized to ask for dismissal or closing of the case, but the court is free to do that if the situation justifies it. [00:03:57] Speaker 00: Well, Your Honor, my understanding of a dismissal without prejudice is yes, when facts change, a new motion can be filed. [00:04:05] Speaker 00: The adversary remains pending, Your Honor, and currently I'm in a conundrum because I remain counsel for an entity [00:04:11] Speaker 01: Okay, but you have now, you've talked that certain changes have taken place. [00:04:16] Speaker 01: One, the UK matter is done, right? [00:04:19] Speaker 01: And the other piece is, since the order denying, when you went back and asked if you could close the case, your client has told you, you can't do it. [00:04:29] Speaker 01: So you point out that you are in a conundrum to Judge Spraker. [00:04:33] Speaker 01: You know, Your Honor, things have changed. [00:04:35] Speaker 01: That UK matter's not going. [00:04:38] Speaker 01: You'd like this other matter to be closed. [00:04:40] Speaker 01: I can't do that. [00:04:42] Speaker 01: I'm not authorized to do anything. [00:04:44] Speaker 01: With these changed circumstances, I need to get out. [00:04:47] Speaker 01: And you can say, judge, you can order, you can cause an order to show cause why certain things shouldn't be closed or should be closed or should be dismissed. [00:04:59] Speaker 02: Or order, you know, your non-existent client to get new counsel, you know, that shouldn't be on you. [00:05:07] Speaker 02: You know, we recognize that you're kind of in between a rock and a hard place. [00:05:12] Speaker 02: here, Ms. [00:05:13] Speaker 02: Kung. [00:05:14] Speaker 02: But the standard is abuse of discretion for overturning this order. [00:05:20] Speaker 02: And so tell me how Judge Breaker abused his discretion in saying that a legitimate reason for not letting lawyers to get out of cases for entities is because there's nobody to step in. [00:05:39] Speaker 02: Give us an abuse of discretion. [00:05:42] Speaker 00: Your Honor, I would respectfully disagree with the conclusion. [00:05:45] Speaker 00: I agree that it is an abuse of discretion. [00:05:48] Speaker 00: I believe that it was an abuse of discretion for Judge Spraker to require me to seek to close the case. [00:05:56] Speaker 00: I don't think that was an appropriate condition of a motion to withdraw. [00:06:00] Speaker 00: It is not required by the rules. [00:06:03] Speaker 00: The case was not fully administered. [00:06:05] Speaker 00: Had it been fully administered, perhaps the fact would have changed. [00:06:09] Speaker 00: And I understand the comments [00:06:11] Speaker 01: Let's assume you're right. [00:06:15] Speaker 01: That was a mistake. [00:06:17] Speaker 01: That. [00:06:19] Speaker 01: Judge shouldn't have said condition your withdrawal on dismissal of the case, OK? [00:06:27] Speaker 01: The judge could also have denied it for other grounds. [00:06:32] Speaker 01: And so we don't have to have. [00:06:34] Speaker 01: I mean, it could be wrong on one, but right on the other. [00:06:37] Speaker 01: And if it's he's right on the other, [00:06:40] Speaker 01: we don't get to reverse them either. [00:06:43] Speaker 00: So I'd like to address the other grounds, Your Honor. [00:06:44] Speaker 00: There were two grounds set forth in this very short order. [00:06:48] Speaker 00: The first was, and again, the order did not state this is why it was denied. [00:06:53] Speaker 00: So all I can do is glean from the judge's words why it was denied. [00:06:59] Speaker 00: Same for us. [00:07:00] Speaker 00: Yeah. [00:07:02] Speaker 00: The first one I've addressed was it seemed as though the judge was requiring me to see [00:07:07] Speaker 00: closure of the case, which for the reasons I've now addressed, I did not believe was appropriate. [00:07:12] Speaker 00: The fact that facts have changed does not retroactively fix the actions that were wrong at the time they were taken. [00:07:18] Speaker 00: So though I respect the position of Judge Corbett that I can file a separate motion, that's not why we're here today. [00:07:26] Speaker 00: We're here today, as Your Honor has aptly noted, to determine if there was an abuse of discretion. [00:07:31] Speaker 00: With regards to the second rationale that I gleaned from the order, that was that [00:07:35] Speaker 00: No information for new counsel was provided. [00:07:38] Speaker 00: Now, I understand that corporations in the state of Nevada may only be represented through counsel and cannot act for themselves. [00:07:45] Speaker 00: However, that is not a criteria required for withdrawal. [00:07:49] Speaker 00: And in many cases, clients proceed without further representation, even though they are a corporation. [00:07:55] Speaker 00: What the court normally does is enter an order to show cause that if they don't have counsel appear, the case will then be dismissed or other sanctions will issue. [00:08:04] Speaker 00: That is what I'm used to seeing. [00:08:06] Speaker 00: That is what typically happens. [00:08:08] Speaker 00: And I think, Your Honor, hit the nail on the head that it's not on me. [00:08:11] Speaker 00: It is not an obligation imparted upon me by any rule or any case law that I have to make sure that my corporate counsel retains new counsel. [00:08:23] Speaker 00: That's their decision. [00:08:24] Speaker 00: And the court can take whatever appropriate steps necessary if my client does not choose to do so, including dismissal of the case or any other appropriate statement. [00:08:34] Speaker 01: Help me with the timeline here, okay? [00:08:37] Speaker 01: You were directed to close the case. [00:08:40] Speaker 01: Let's assume that that is in Judge Spraker's order. [00:08:43] Speaker 01: Subsequently, isn't it right, subsequently to you being directed to close the case, you were told by your client not to do anything. [00:08:52] Speaker 01: That not to do anything came after the order? [00:08:56] Speaker 00: Yes and no, Your Honor. [00:08:57] Speaker 00: I set forth in my original declaration in my motion to withdraw. [00:09:00] Speaker 00: My client had instructed me not to do anything further. [00:09:04] Speaker 00: at the time he asked me to withdraw. [00:09:07] Speaker 00: I then reiterated, hey, I did not get this motion granted, the judge seems to want me to take this additional action, am I allowed to do so? [00:09:16] Speaker 00: And they said, no, we had advised you previously, you were to take no further action. [00:09:20] Speaker 01: So it's fair to say they confirmed it. [00:09:23] Speaker 01: They confirmed that, you know, so I mean, that point, again, you talked about the only way to do this was on appeal, but going back and saying, [00:09:33] Speaker 01: Reading between the lines, Judge Breaker, you've asked me to do certain things. [00:09:37] Speaker 01: I can't do those things. [00:09:39] Speaker 01: That's been confirmed. [00:09:41] Speaker 01: Under the circumstances that, with the UK matter done, I can't do anything this. [00:09:48] Speaker 01: I have to answer to my client. [00:09:49] Speaker 01: I also have to answer to you. [00:09:50] Speaker 01: My client says, I can't do anything that you've asked me to do. [00:09:54] Speaker 01: Under these changed circumstances, I need to step out of this case. [00:10:01] Speaker 01: And your honor, under those circumstances where you have a corporate entity that refuses to hire somebody else and refuses to let their attorney do anything, your honor, you have discretion to do in order to show cause why this case shouldn't be dismissed. [00:10:18] Speaker 01: And the circumstances have changed such, isn't that something you could do even if we affirmed? [00:10:26] Speaker 00: I agree with what you were stating, your honor. [00:10:28] Speaker 00: I don't think that's the appropriate question before the panel. [00:10:32] Speaker 00: The appropriate question is not what else could I have done? [00:10:35] Speaker 00: What maybe else I should have done? [00:10:38] Speaker 01: I'm just looking at the effect of our order. [00:10:41] Speaker 01: If we find that on one ground or another, Judge Breaker did not abuse his discretion. [00:10:48] Speaker 01: And so you lose here. [00:10:50] Speaker 01: I was noodling in my mind. [00:10:54] Speaker 01: What is the effect of such an order? [00:10:57] Speaker 00: I have similarly noodled, Your Honor, and I don't know. [00:11:01] Speaker 00: I could continue to, I'm outside of the timeline of a motion for reconsideration, clearly. [00:11:07] Speaker 00: I could file another motion to withdraw, but the facts have not changed. [00:11:12] Speaker 01: So the law of the case- I think the facts have changed. [00:11:15] Speaker 01: I think confirmed again, the judge said you have to stay in. [00:11:20] Speaker 01: You go back to your client with those changed circumstances and the client says, it doesn't matter to us [00:11:26] Speaker 01: We're confirming you can't do anything. [00:11:29] Speaker 01: Okay. [00:11:30] Speaker 01: So in spite of Judge Breaker's order, we know you can't do anything. [00:11:34] Speaker 01: How can you stay in this case if it's been confirmed that you can't do anything? [00:11:38] Speaker 01: And the other piece is that the UK matter has been resolved. [00:11:43] Speaker 01: Those are significant changes in my mind. [00:11:48] Speaker 00: respectfully, Your Honor, I disagree. [00:11:50] Speaker 00: I think that's a distinction without a difference. [00:11:52] Speaker 00: The fact that my client told me something and subsequently confirmed the same thing that he told me doesn't change the fact that he told me something and that fact remains. [00:12:02] Speaker 00: The question again we're looking at is whether or not it was an abuse of discretion for Judge Breaker, who I respect greatly as a judge, to deny my withdrawal first on [00:12:12] Speaker 00: without setting a hearing. [00:12:14] Speaker 00: Second, despite the fact that there was no opposition. [00:12:17] Speaker 00: Third, based upon the fact that he cited to a case that holds that when a case is fully administered, it should be closed. [00:12:24] Speaker 00: Third, fourth, based upon the fact that this case was not fully administered, and fifth, based upon the fact that he was required me to provide replacement counsel information, which is not incumbent on me to do, which I cannot do, and which is not required. [00:12:40] Speaker 00: So the question before the panel, Your Honor, is did Judge Spraker abuse his discretion in granting an order without any hearing, without any further briefing, so it was Sponte. [00:12:55] Speaker 00: putting conditions on my withdrawal, which are not conditions under any case law or any rule. [00:13:01] Speaker 01: Is there another possibility that we remand to Judge Spraker to have a hearing? [00:13:10] Speaker 01: You said that one of the reasons why he abused his discretion was that he didn't give you a hearing. [00:13:18] Speaker 02: Is a hearing required? [00:13:19] Speaker 02: Let me just ask that question of Frank. [00:13:21] Speaker 02: Don't judges [00:13:22] Speaker 02: waive hearings or dispense with, you know, make rulings without having a hearing, you know, why a hearing isn't required, is it? [00:13:31] Speaker 00: Well, when it is fully briefed, the judges, the court is absolutely entitled to take it under advisement under the pleadings. [00:13:45] Speaker 00: I have never seen a situation where a motion was filed [00:13:48] Speaker 00: and denied before any opposition deadline had run. [00:13:51] Speaker 00: I have never seen the situation. [00:13:55] Speaker 00: So Your Honor, you would know better than me. [00:13:57] Speaker 00: I have seen matters that are fully briefed and the court will issue an order in chambers saying we don't believe a hearing is necessary. [00:14:05] Speaker 00: I have had ex parte or [00:14:10] Speaker 00: not ex parte, but motions to withdraw granted in chambers. [00:14:13] Speaker 00: I have never had one denied under this scenario, especially if the judge had further questions or instructions. [00:14:20] Speaker 00: I believe it was incumbent on the judge to set a hearing if he was going to deny it. [00:14:26] Speaker 02: It might have been better. [00:14:28] Speaker 02: I think we all can agree it might have been better if he had held the hearing, because then you both could have tried to problem solve during the hearing with the situation. [00:14:38] Speaker 02: Whether that's an abuse of discretion is a different question. [00:14:42] Speaker 01: Ms. [00:14:42] Speaker 01: Cunn, refresh my recollection on the record here. [00:14:45] Speaker 01: In your motion, in the pleadings that were given to Judge Spraker, was it disclosed that you were told by your client to do nothing? [00:14:58] Speaker 00: It was. [00:14:58] Speaker 00: It was in the declaration that I had been instructed to take no further action and withdraw as counsel. [00:15:08] Speaker 00: Unless your honors have any further questions for me. [00:15:12] Speaker 02: I don't. [00:15:12] Speaker 02: Anybody else? [00:15:14] Speaker 01: No. [00:15:15] Speaker 02: All right. [00:15:16] Speaker 02: Thank you very much, Ms. [00:15:17] Speaker 02: Kang. [00:15:17] Speaker 02: The matter is submitted. [00:15:18] Speaker 02: Thank you for your time.