United States v. Midtown Fashion

4 OCAHO 657 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER June 30, 1994 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Complainant, v. MIDTOWN FASHION INC., Respondent. 8 U.S.C. 1324a Proceeding ) OCAHO Case No. 94A00091 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW On May 26, 1994, respondent firm's counsel of record, Casimir F. Sojka, Esquire, filed a pleading captioned Motion for Request of With- drawal of Representative Due to Missing Client. As grounds therefor, Mr. Sojka advised that despite his repeated efforts, he has been unable to contact his client. By way of background, on October 22, 1993, Mr. Sojka filed a written request for hearing on behalf of one Shirley You, "doing business under the name of Midtown Fashion, Inc.".

On May 5, 1994, the four-count Complaint at issue was filed. In that initiating pleading, some 30 IRCA violations were alleged, for which civil money penalties totaling $16,210 were sought, or the sums of $1,210, $3,000, $7,000, and $5,000 for the violations alleged in Counts I, II, III, and IV, respectively. 592 4 OCAHO 657 On May 24, 1994, respondent's counsel filed a letter with this office, in which he stated that he was unable to locate his client and had been advised that the respondent firm was out of business. On May 26, 1994, as noted earlier, the motion under consideration was filed.

In prior proceedings involving generally similar factual settings, the administrative law judges in this office have denied motions/requests of counsel to withdraw where, as here, the party's counsel of record is the only person authorized to receive documents on a respondent's behalf, and where said counsel's law office is the only address for deli- very of such documents. See U.S. v. Primera Enters., OCAHO Case No. 93A00024 (Order Denying Respondent's Counsel's Motion to With- draw), at 2 (5/17/94); U.S. v. K & M Fashions, Inc., 3 OCAHO 411 (3/16/92); U.S. v. Nu Look Cleaners of Pembroke Pines, Inc., 1 OCAHO 284 (1/4/91). Accordingly, respondent's counsel's Motion to Withdraw is denied. All further correspondence directed to the respondent firm will continue to be served upon respondent's counsel of record, as respondent's agent for that purpose.

JOSEPH E. MCGUIRE

Administrative Law Judge 593