Goldstein v. Essential Demo, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_______________________________________
)
NATHAN P. GOLDSTEIN, 	)
as Executive Director, Massachusetts 	)
Laborers’ Benefit Funds, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	Civil Action No.
v. 	) 	24-10248-FDS
)
ESSENTIAL DEMO, INC., 	)
)
Defendant, and 	)
)
RISE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, 	)
INC., 	)
)
Reach-and-Apply Defendant. 	)
)
_______________________________________)
ORDER ON ATTORNEY DINICOLA’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
SAYLOR, J.
On November 18, 2025, John W. DiNicola, II, attorney for reach-and-apply defendant
Rise Construction Management, Inc., moved for leave to withdraw as counsel. (Dkt. No. 67).
Attorney DiNicola sought leave to withdraw because, “[f]or financial reasons, Rise no longer
wishes to defend against the claims asserted . . . in this matter.” (Id. at 1). He also asserted that
there had been a “significant breakdown of the attorney-client relationship between Rise” and
himself. (Id. at 2). The motion was accompanied by an affidavit from James Grossman, CEO of
Rise Construction Management, Inc., stating that “Rise is in a difficult financial position and
lacks the resources to participate in a number of lawsuits to which it is a party, including this
one,” and that, as a result, he had instructed Attorney DiNicola to “withdraw from representing
Rise in this matter.” (Dkt. No. 67, Ex. 1 at 1).
Case 1:24-cv-10248-FDS Document 70 Filed 11/25/25 Page 1 of 2

2
Under the Local Rules of this District, an attorney must obtain leave of court to withdraw
his or her appearance under certain circumstances, including where the attorney seeks to
withdraw his or her appearance “for good cause shown.” D. Mass. L.R. 83.5.2(c). “Deciding an
attorney’s motion to withdraw in a civil case is a matter addressed to the discretion of the trial
court.” Cozy, Inc. v. Dorel Juvenile Grp., Inc., 711 F. Supp. 3d 19, 21 (D. Mass. 2025) (quoting
Lieberman v. Polytop Corp., 2 F. App’x 37, 39 (1st Cir. 2001)).
The principal issue with the present motion is that no other counsel has appeared for Rise
in this matter, and no successor counsel has entered an appearance. Under the Local Rules, “[a]
corporation . . . may not appear pro se.” D. Mass. L.R. 83.5.5(c). Accordingly, if Attorney
DiNicola is permitted to withdraw, the corporation will be without counsel. A likely
consequence of allowing the motion is that the corporation will be deemed to be in default, and a
subsequent judgment or other order may enter holding it liable for all claims asserted against it.
Under the circumstances, the Court cannot immediately allow the motion. Instead, the
Court will allow some additional time for Rise to locate successor counsel. If successor counsel
enters an appearance for Rise Construction Management, Inc., the motion to withdraw will be
granted as of the date of that appearance. If no successor counsel has entered an appearance by
December 12, 2025, and the Court has not extended that time period, the motion to withdraw
will be granted on that date, and Rise Construction Management, Inc., will be deemed to be in
default.
So Ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
Dated: November 25, 2025 	United States District Court Judge
Case 1:24-cv-10248-FDS Document 70 Filed 11/25/25 Page 2 of 2