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. d/b/a Thesis Nootropics Inc., Judge Liman granted leave for sanctions and fee motions and planned to consider pending motions unopposed.
Recoop LLC and Thesis are directly affected. The order also concerns Daniel Freed and Anastasia Alt as parties identified in the caption, and Recoop’s ability to continue litigating through counsel.
What happened
In Recoop LLC v. Outliers Inc. d/b/a Thesis Nootropics Inc., Thesis asked to file a motion seeking sanctions against Recoop and attorneys’ fees under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, claiming Recoop’s trade-secret claim was brought in bad faith.
The court granted Thesis permission to file those motions by January 17, 2025. Recoop’s former lawyers had withdrawn, and no new lawyer had appeared for Recoop by the January 6 deadline. The court had warned that a company cannot represent itself in federal court, and it said it intended to consider Thesis’s pending summary-judgment and cost-sharing-enforcement motions without opposition.
Judge Lewis J. Liman did not rule on the pending summary-judgment or enforcement motions in this order. He ordered only that Thesis could file the sanctions and fee motions and stated that the other motions would be considered as unopposed.
The detailed version
- Recoop LLC v. Outliers Inc. d/b/a Thesis Nootropics Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-01810
- Lewis Liman
- Jan. 10, 2025
Background
Outliers Inc. d/b/a Thesis Nootropics Inc. (“Thesis”) requested permission to file a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 against Recoop LLC (“Recoop”). Thesis also requested permission to seek attorneys’ fees under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(D), based on its allegation that Recoop brought a trade-secret misappropriation claim in bad faith.
Thesis also asked the court to grant as unopposed its pending motion for summary judgment and its motion to compel compliance with the court’s August 2 cost-sharing orders. The opinion does not decide either of those pending motions.
Procedural Status
On December 5, 2024, the court allowed Recoop’s prior counsel to withdraw because of irreconcilable differences that made continued representation unreasonable. The court had also allowed Thesis to file a motion concerning payment of Stroz Friedberg fees. Recoop requested 30 days to obtain new counsel, and the court gave Recoop until January 6, 2025, to avoid a default.
No attorney appeared for Recoop. The court reiterated that a corporation may not appear in federal court without an attorney. Although Anastasia Alt, identified in the opinion as Recoop’s chief executive officer, wrote to the court seeking a stay while the New York State Grievance Committee reviewed a complaint filed by Recoop, the court found that the letter did not show that Recoop had taken steps to obtain counsel.
Ruling
The court granted Thesis leave to file its Rule 11 sanctions motion and its motion for attorneys’ fees by January 17, 2025. The court stated that it intended to consider the pending motions as unopposed. It did not grant or deny the pending summary-judgment motion or the motion to compel in this order. The order was signed by Lewis J. Liman, United States District Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.