The title is not incorrect, due to a quirk in SDNY practice under which a paper captioned "notice of motion" serves most of the purposes of a "motion" under FRCP 7. Filing a separate paper captioned "motion" is a mild gaucherie in almost all circumstances. This practice is not typical of federal courts and may be unique to the federal courts in New York City.
SDNY Local Rule 7 requires motions to be accompanied a separate memorandum and a separate supporting affidavit. Compliance with this rule can result in a set of papers that it unnecessarily verbose and repetitive in the case of routine motions that can be briefly presented and that are typically granted without opposition as a matter of course. If you have a solid familiarity with local practice you will know when you can get away with presenting the grounds for your motion in the notice of motion without including a separate memorandum, and sometimes without including a supporting affidavit, the function of the affidavit being supplied by implicit representations in the notice of motion.
Local Rule 1.4, of which the government lawyers were obviously aware (because of the statement about a charging lien), concerning withdrawal of counsel of record, requires "a showing by affidavit or otherwise
of satisfactory reasons for withdrawal" (emphasis added), and I can imagine unusual circumstances where you could get away with omitting an affidavit because the grounds for withdrawal were already clearly on the record.
However, as other members have noted, this notice of motion to withdraw was inadequate as to its substance, and the government lawyers might well have hoped that they could get away with putting as little as possible on the record about the reasons for withdrawal. It didn't work.
SLQ wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:46 pm
Dan1100 wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:37 pm
neonzx wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:25 pm
Clarification. The court stated Defendants filed a "Notice of Motion to Withdraw as Counsel"
What is the distinction between filing a "Notice of Motion" vs filing a "Motion"?
I'm not trying to defend the actions of the DOJ and AG Barr. Is this just semantics involved here. I understand they didn't qualify the withdrawal with a proper reason.
I was being a little snarky.
It is the lack of reasons and the assumption that it would be granted without reasons that matters, not the title.
I assume the title is wrong but I don't really know that it is.
edit: and what SQL said
Exactly. I think the caption calling it "Notice of Motion" was intentionally misleading. But what really matters is the content, which the judge found wholly inadequate. He called out the name of the motion and their high-handedness for a reason.