Morocho v. Stars Jewelry By the A Jeweler Corp.

Background

Plaintiff Rodrigo Morocho brought claims under the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act against Stars Jewelry By the A Jeweler Corp., Stars Jeweler by Talia, Inc., Hananya Aranbaiev, and Uazia Aranbaiev. The opinion states that Seo Law Group, PLLC previously represented Defendants but withdrew because of nonpayment of attorneys’ fees. The court repeatedly stayed the case to give Defendants time to find new counsel.

Hananya Aranbaiev later stated that he could not afford an attorney and needed guidance. Morocho requested a settlement conference in which Defendants would proceed without lawyers, but the court instead considered seeking limited pro bono representation. The court found Hananya Aranbaiev indigent based on his financial affidavit. Uazia Aranbaiev did not submit a separate affidavit, but the court relied on statements that he was ill and financially dependent on Hananya Aranbaiev to find that Uazia Aranbaiev also qualified as indigent.

Legal Standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request that a volunteer lawyer represent a person who cannot afford counsel. In civil cases, the court is not required to provide counsel and cannot compel a lawyer to serve. The court must exercise broad discretion and request pro bono representation sparingly.

The court applied factors identified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, including whether the claims or defenses appear likely to have substance, the litigant’s ability to investigate and present the case, the complexity of the issues, the need for cross-examination, and whether counsel would help produce a fair result.

Court’s Analysis

The court expressly made no decision about the merits of Morocho’s claims. It found, however, that Defendants could present defenses likely to have substance. The court cited, as an example, possible issues involving Morocho’s claims under New York’s wage-notice and wage-statement provisions. The opinion explains that a Supreme Court decision concerning concrete harm had complicated recovery for such violations and that Morocho’s complaint did not allege specific concrete injuries for those claims, although the allegations might be supplemented.

The court also found that the corporate defendants could not proceed without counsel in federal court and could therefore face a default judgment if they remained unrepresented. It concluded that Defendants lacked the ability to present the case adequately without counsel. The court further found that Defendants had made diligent efforts to obtain representation and that Morocho consented to limited pro bono representation for the settlement conference.

Order and Scope of Representation

The court directed the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate pro bono counsel for Defendants for the purpose of participating in settlement discussions. The direction was not an appointment of a specific lawyer and did not guarantee that a volunteer would accept the representation. If counsel volunteered, the lawyer would file a notice of limited appearance.

The representation would be limited to settlement matters. Counsel would not automatically be required to respond to a dispositive motion, including a motion for summary judgment. If Morocho sought a default judgment or filed another motion, counsel could request an extension or ask the court to expand the representation. The representation would ordinarily end after settlement discussions and the filing of a notice of completion.

The court stated that it would hold Morocho’s fully briefed motion for partial summary judgment in abeyance while awaiting the outcome of any settlement conference. The order did not rule on that motion or on the underlying claims.