Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I have seen stocks like this blow up on FOMO and momentum.
I'm looking for 25 to 50 cents.
I missed the AN#I move by like 2 days. I sold too soon and didn't think it was going to keep going up so I never bought back in.
It was painful.
64% and running
Man looks like we getting a little ask smacking action. Looking lovely.
I could see this closing at .03 today
Shoot they could have just needed the money for something unexpected like a car repair or something. I just had to pay out $5,400 for a stupid transfer case for my car. I had the Monet but guess where it would have come from if I didn't...good ole Etrade.
It was actually the extended hours trading but then it went back down to .014something. I use the Etrade app on my phone when I'm at work cause I don't like pulling it up on my work computer. It acts funny sometimes thou.
Nevermind that is the extended hours trading.
No my etrade popped up to .021 at close.
Did we just close at .021 after bugging out at .014 for the past almost two hours?
(Rolling my eyes)
Well after I buy some more of course, then come back Monday.
I'm just going to go ahead and come back Monday.
Bruh.....
I don't know what or why but I don't like it.
(Mad face!)
We sitting there together. I almost thought it was going to get filled early but I think my bid too big to get them all at once.
They keep allowing these 30% flips I will be
??
Whoever has been selling under .024 Thank you kindly.
I will be back tomorrow for some more
Sharing is caring
#WeRichYet
Lol
We rich yet...lol
Looks like we getting there.
Etrade L2 says we thin to $8.00...lol
We rich yet.....lol
So where is that post?
Well, I helped out a little slapping the ask. I hope I dont get disappointed again.
Guess I'll check back in two weeks
I think I been sitting around watching for about two years now. Have yet to wake up to some fruits of suggested labor.
Damn!
We still not rich yet. I thought the settlement was completed.
Going down I guess the news is just a repeat of last year's "we about to do something big" that never turns into the revenues they allude to.
The way things looking I might have missed my exit
We rich yet?...lol
What I miss?
That was no institution. That was someone on this board. They even posted it was them.
Why would an institution only buy $6,000 worth...lol
What you mean no such thing as worthless. Try trade a stock that ticker turned into a bunch of random numbers. There is definitely a such thing as holding a worthless stock.
Looks like we have some FOMO going on over here.
Are we at 6 million pre-market or E-Trade acting up?
They sure are busy in the court room today. I wonder what all those documents are for
We rich yet?
Looks like we have some new holders. Welcome...lol
Man. The wording on these court documents not looking too good these days. Judge seems a little irritated with CMGO not providing those hard drives and USBs.
We rich yet?
5th Day is tomorrow!
Let the games begin
Honestly they look busy. Everyday there is a new update or paperwork submitted. Today was
Granting Joint Motion to Extend Certain Procedural Schedule Dates
because there was a conflict with some of the previously set dates. I believe they are making headway an negotiations are heavy.
Lost some more layers:
Copied and pasted from today's PaceMonitor update. Some information was sealed and some was redacted.
October 3, 2018
Via ECF
Hon. Stewart D. Aaron, United States Magistrate Judge
United States Courthouse
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl St.
New York, New York 10007-1312
Re: CMG Holdings Group, Inc. v. Joseph Wagner, et al.
15-cv-05814-JPO
Dear Judge Aaron:
Counsel for Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants hereby request, pursuant to paragraph
3(C) of your Honor’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, an informal telephonic conference with
the Court on or before October 10, 2018 to discuss the request of Edwards Pottinger LLC and
Stone Magnanini LLP to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants
in this matter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 1.4. Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants
consent to Counsel’s request to withdraw and support the request for a limited stay of the litigation
to afford them an opportunity to hire new counsel. Accordingly, Counsel has requested that the
District Court stay the litigation. Counsel for Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants advised
Defendants’ counsel of the relief requested herein before filing this letter motion.
If the Court desires to address the basis for Counsel’s request to withdraw, then Counsel
respectfully requests that this be heard in camera to protect privileged attorney-client
communications. In addition, Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants request the opportunity to
appear by telephone or in person at any hearing in which the Court reviews the matter in camera.
Between September 13 and 21, counsel for Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants took four
depositions of Defendants. Additional depositions would need to be taken before October 19,
2018.
Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court hold an informal telephonic
conference before Plaintiff’s counsel travels to New York for additional depositions.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Pursuant to Southern District of New York Local Rule 1.4, Edwards Pottinger LLC (“EP”)
and Stone Magnanini, LLP (“Stone”) (collectively “Counsel”), respectfully submit this in support
of their motion to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff CMG Holdings Group, Inc. (“CMG”)
and Third-Party Defendants Glenn Laken and Alexis Laken in the above-captioned matter, and for
all currently scheduled deadlines in the case to be briefly adjourned pending the resolution of this
motion.
Counsel seeks leave to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff and Third-Party
Defendants because: (1) Plaintiff/Third-Party Defendants and Counsel have divergent and
irreconcilable views regarding the litigation strategy to employ in this matter and these substantive
differences have seriously impaired Counsel’s ability to represent them.
Prior to making this motion, Counsel advised Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants that it
would seek to withdraw on the grounds set forth herein. During the course of Counsel’s
representation of Plaintiff ant Third-Party Defendants in this litigation, EP has performed a
substantial amount of work in connection with the discovery phase of this action, engaged in
extensive document review, prepared and defended various discovery motions, prepared for and
attended a judicial settlement conference, prepared for, took, and attended several depositions.
Counsel have advised Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants of its intention to terminate its
representation and withdraw as their counsel. Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants have consented
to and agree with Counsel’s withdrawal, but seek a reasonable opportunity to retain new Counsel.
Consequently, Counsel’s withdrawal will not prejudice the litigation, nor substantially impede the
progress of this action.
I. The Rules of Professional Conduct and Local Rule 1.4 Relieve An Attorney Of
Record By Order Of Court
Pursuant to Local Rule 1.4 of the Southern District of New York, "an attorney who has
appeared as attorney of record for a party may be relieved . . . by order of the Court . . . . Such an
order may be granted only upon a showing by affidavit or otherwise of satisfactory reasons for
withdrawal . . . ." The New York State Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16 permits
withdrawal of counsel where, inter alia, the client "the client knowingly and freely assents to
termination of the employment" N.Y. Prof. Conduct Rule 1.16(10).
II. Irreconcilable Differences With Client Warrant Withdrawal of Counsel
Under Rule1.16(c)(4) of The New York State Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer may
withdraw from representation where “the client insists upon taking action with which the lawyer
has a fundamental disagreement.” Furthermore, under Rule 1.16(c), the lawyer may withdraw
where “the client insists upon taking action with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement”
or “the client fails to cooperate in the representation or otherwise renders the representation
unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out employment effectively.”
“‘[T]he existence of an irreconcilable conflict between attorney and client is a proper basis
for the attorney to cease representing his client.’” Bijan Karimian v. Time Equities, Inc., No. 10
Civ. 3773, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51916, at *4- *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2011) (citations omitted);
Dowler v. Cunard Line Ltd., No. 94 Civ. 7480, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9100 (S.D.N.Y. June 28,
1996) (permitting withdrawal on the grounds that “strong evidence of a strained attorney-client
relationship regardless of the source of the strain is sufficient grounds” for an attorney to withdraw);
McGuire v. Wilson, 735 F. Supp. 83, 85 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (allowing attorney to withdraw because
"relationship between the parties has deteriorated beyond repair"); Hallmark Capital Corp. v. Red
Rose Collection, No. 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16328, at *8-*9 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 1997) (“[T]he
client and counsel have irreconcilable differences, that is a satisfactory reason to allow counsel to
withdraw.”).
Withdrawal has been permitted where “an irreconcilable conflict [] developed between
[counsel and client] regarding litigation strategy.” Hallmark Capital Corp., 1997 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 16328 (quoting Tufano v. City of New York, No. 94 Civ. 8655, 1996 WL 419912 at *1
(S.D.N.Y. July 25, 1996); citing Sansiviero v. Sanders, 117 A.D.2d 794, 795, 499 N.Y.S.2d 431,
431 (2d Dep't) (motion to withdraw granted in "light of the irreconcilable differences between"
counsel and his client "with respect to the proper course to be pursued by counsel in the litigation”);
see also Casper v. Lew Lieberbaum & Co., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7779 (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 1999)
(permitting withdrawal where plaintiffs and original counsel disagreed about litigation strategy,
the value of the case, [and] the strength of the case”). Furthermore, “counsel ethically can
withdraw where the client insists upon a course of conduct that is contrary to the judgment and
advice of counsel.” Ashcroft v. Dep't of Corr., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73624, 1416 (W.D.N.Y.
Sept. 18, 2008) (citing N.Y.S. Code of Prof. Responsibility, EC 7-8). Withdrawal was also allowed
where disagreement over witnesses arose. Whiting v. Lacara, 187 F.3d 317, 322 (2d Cir. 1999)
(granted motion for withdrawal where client did not pay fees and the attorney and client disagreed
over pressing claims already dismissed and which witnesses to call).
III. Withdrawal of Counsel Will Not Prejudice Plaintiff and Third-Party
Defendants
Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants will not be prejudiced by Counsel’s withdrawal as
counsel. Counsel has requested a continuance of all dates. Moreover, in light of the irreconcilable
tension and conflict between Plaintiff, Third-Party Defendants, and Counsel, Counsel respectfully
submits that they should be allowed to withdraw. Counsel also respectfully requests that a brief
continuance of the scheduled dates for the completion of depositions and the other dates in the
operative scheduling order be granted pending the resolution of this motion and in the event that
this application is granted. Moreover, Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants consent to Counsel’s
request to withdraw and wish to be represented by other counsel.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Counsel respectfully request that the Court grant its motion to
withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants and briefly continue the
scheduled dates in the case. Counsel, Edwards Pottinger LLC and Stone Magnanini LLP,
respectively waive any entitlement to attorney fees. However, both firms retain liens for costs and
expenses.
Very truly yours,
Seth Lehrman
Seth Lehrman
cc: Scott Matthews, Esq. (Via ECF)
CMG Holdings Group, Inc., c/o Glenn Laken via email
Glenn Laken via email
Alexis Laken via email
David Stone, Esq. (Via ECF)
Julio C. Gomez, Esq. (Via ECF)
I use this link because it tracks everything daily. It's not so great visually but it keeps me up to date.
https://edis.usitc.gov/data/document?investigationNumber=337-1089&investigationPhase=Violation