\n
In response, the woman filed an unusual direct appeal to the judge, asking to have her case dismissed, and saying that she feared \u201cpotential grave harm\u201d if her name became known. Her lawyers then asked permission to withdraw as her counsel, saying that \u201cthe attorney-client relationship has deteriorated beyond repair.\u201d<\/p>\n
In her letter to the judge, the woman said that her lead attorney, Jeffrey R. Anderson, had actually resigned days earlier and told her in a letter: \u201cNow that the defendants brought your case into the federal court where your anonymity and your name can no longer be protected, you are faced and we are faced with the possibility of grave further harm.\u201d<\/p>\n
Lawyers for Mr. Portnow wrote to the judge saying that any dismissal of the case should be \u201cwith prejudice,\u201d which would prevent her from bringing it again.<\/p>\n
The woman, they wrote, had engaged in \u201cvexatious and harassing behavior that has caused substantial harm\u201d to Mr. Portnow. Their response included what they said were excerpts from text messages and emails; they said the woman had proposed marriage to Mr. Portnow and asked him to write a letter of recommendation for an immigration application.<\/p>\n
In rejecting Mr. Portnow\u2019s request, Judge Torres said that Mr. Portnow would not suffer \u201cplain legal prejudice\u201d if another case were brought. The judge also noted the text messages and emails he cited, saying: \u201cPortnow\u2019s one-sided characterization of the events at issue precedes discovery, and Portnow has not offered evidence that the litigation itself was filed with an \u2018ill motive.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n