Recoop LLC v. Outliers Inc. d/b/a Thesis Nootropics Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:24-cv-01810
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Recoop LLC v. Outliers Inc., Judge Liman addressed counsel’s withdrawal request and warned that Recoop could default without a lawyer.
Recoop LLC, Anastasia Alt, Bochner LLP, Outliers Inc. d/b/a Thesis Nootropics Inc., and Daniel Freed.
What happened
In Recoop LLC v. Outliers Inc. d/b/a Thesis Nootropics Inc., the plaintiff’s lawyer filed an amended request to withdraw and stated that the firm was asserting a charging lien. Recoop’s owner, Anastasia Alt, filed papers saying she was representing herself and asked the court to deny the withdrawal request or pause the case for 180 days while she resolved the dispute and found new counsel.
The court explained that Recoop is a company and therefore cannot appear in court without a lawyer. Alt may represent herself in her individual capacity as a person named in Outliers’ counterclaim, but she may not represent Recoop as the plaintiff. The court warned that Recoop could face a default if its lawyer withdraws and no replacement lawyer timely appears.
Judge Lewis J. Liman scheduled a hearing on the withdrawal request for October 30, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. and ordered Alt and the lawyers for both sides to attend. The order did not state that the withdrawal request was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Recoop LLC v. Outliers Inc. d/b/a Thesis Nootropics Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-01810
- Lewis Liman
- Oct. 24, 2024
Background
Counsel for Recoop LLC filed an amended motion to withdraw under Local Rule 1.4. The filing stated that counsel was asserting a charging lien. Anastasia Alt, identified as Recoop’s owner, filed a notice that she would appear without a lawyer and asked the court to deny the withdrawal motion. Alternatively, she requested a 180-day pause so she could resolve the dispute with counsel and obtain new representation.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that Recoop is a corporate entity and that corporations cannot appear in court without an attorney. It also explained that a shareholder or member of a limited liability company may not sue on behalf of the company for harm to the company. Alt could represent herself as an individual defendant named in Outliers’ counterclaim, but she could not represent Recoop as the plaintiff.
Order
The court ordered a hearing on counsel’s motion to withdraw for October 30, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 15C at the 500 Pearl Street Courthouse. The court ordered Alt, counsel for Recoop, and defense counsel to appear. The court stated that if it permits counsel to withdraw and no other lawyer timely appears for Recoop, Recoop will be at risk of default. The opinion does not state that the withdrawal motion was granted or denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.