Eisenberger v. Friedman

Background

Seth Eisenberger brought state-law claims against Chaim Friedman, Libe Friedman, Chana Friedman, Lawrence Plaza Associates LLC, Brewer Estates LLC, Brewer Holdings LLC, Willow Tree LLC, and 34 Second Avenue LLC. Chaim Friedman, who was representing himself, filed a July 17, 2025 application seeking appointment of pro bono counsel and dismissal of the action.

Appointment of Counsel

The court explained that, in a civil case, it may ask a lawyer from its pro bono panel to represent an eligible self-represented litigant, but it cannot force a lawyer to accept the representation. The court considers whether the litigant's position appears likely to have substance and then considers factors such as the litigant's ability to handle the case, the complexity of the issues, and the need for investigation or cross-examination.

The court found that the case was still in its early stages: discovery had not begun, and no summary-judgment motions had been filed. It could not conclude that Friedman was unable to handle the case without assistance, and it could not determine that his position showed a strong chance of success. The court also found that the legal issues were not particularly complex. It therefore denied Friedman's motion for appointment of pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal later in the case.

Request for Dismissal

Friedman also requested dismissal of the action with prejudice. The court stated that he provided no affidavit and no sufficient basis for dismissing the action with prejudice. It denied that application, without prejudice.

Earlier Motion to Dismiss

The court also addressed documents Friedman filed in July 2022 that appeared to be an attempted motion to dismiss. The court said the arguments consisted of conclusory statements, including accusations that Eisenberger's allegations were frivolous and untrue and that Eisenberger was engaging in venue shopping. The court held that these arguments did not address the legal standard for a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint plausibly states a claim for relief. The court denied the July 25, 2022 motion to dismiss without prejudice.

The opinion notes that Chana Friedman had received permission to file a motion to dismiss but did not do so beyond sending a letter saying she wanted to adopt Chaim Friedman's arguments.

Corporate Defendants and Further Proceedings

The court noted that Chaim Friedman, Libe Friedman, and Chana Friedman had entered appearances representing themselves. The corporate defendants had been served but had not entered appearances through counsel. The court stated that corporations may not represent themselves in federal court and directed the corporate defendants' attorneys to file notices of appearance immediately. Otherwise, the corporate defendants risked default.

The court directed the defendants to answer the complaint or seek permission to respond by August 29, 2025. It also noted that no discovery schedule had been established and that the defendants had not yet answered or submitted a joint case-management plan and scheduling order. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 50, mail the order to the self-represented defendants, and record service. Eisenberger was directed to serve the opinion on each corporate defendant and file proof of service.

Disposition and Classification

The court denied without prejudice the request for pro bono counsel, denied without prejudice the request for dismissal with prejudice, and denied without prejudice the July 25, 2022 motion to dismiss. Judge Nelson S. Roman did not decide the merits of Eisenberger's underlying state-law claims. This is a procedural order because it addressed representation, pleading sufficiency, party appearances, and case-management requirements rather than deciding who would prevail on those claims.