Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 8, 2025

Hinchliffe Sports Partners v. Football Is For The Fans Ltd.

Full caption

Hinchliffe Sports Partners, LLC d/b/a Cosmos v. Football Is For The Fans Ltd., et al.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:25-cv-06984
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureIntellectual PropertyPro Se
In one sentence

In Hinchliffe Sports Partners v. Football Is For The Fans, Magistrate Judge Aaron denied a pro se defendant’s request to replace or add Cosmos Soccer Club as plaintiff.

Who this affects

The ruling directly concerned pro se defendant Scott Michaels’s request involving plaintiff Hinchliffe Sports Partners, LLC and Cosmos Soccer Club LLC.

What happened

In Hinchliffe Sports Partners, LLC d/b/a Cosmos v. Football Is For The Fans Ltd., et al., pro se defendant Scott Michaels asked the court to replace the plaintiff with Cosmos Soccer Club LLC or add that company as another plaintiff.

The court said Hinchliffe Sports Partners was the proper party because it acquired all rights, title, and interest in the Cosmos trademarks from Cosmos Soccer Club in a July 2025 transaction. The court also found that the case could provide complete relief without Cosmos Soccer Club and that Michaels had not shown that the company claimed an interest in the case.

The court denied Michaels’s motion to substitute or join Cosmos Soccer Club. It also said his related request for expedited discovery was moot. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Hinchliffe Sports Partners v. Football Is For The Fans Ltd. · No. 1:25-cv-06984
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Nov. 8, 2025

Background

Pro se defendant Scott Michaels moved under Rules 17(a) and 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to substitute Cosmos Soccer Club LLC (CSCL) for plaintiff Hinchliffe Sports Partners, LLC (Hinchliffe), or to add CSCL as a plaintiff. Michaels also made a related request for expedited discovery.

Rule 17(a) substitution

Rule 17(a) requires an action to be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest—the person entitled under the applicable substantive law to enforce the asserted right. The court found that Hinchliffe, not CSCL, was the real party in interest because Hinchliffe acquired all right, title, and interest in the Cosmos trademarks from CSCL in a July 2025 transaction. The court therefore found no basis to substitute CSCL for Hinchliffe.

Rule 19 joinder

Rule 19 concerns compulsory joinder of a person whose absence would prevent the court from providing complete relief, impair that person’s ability to protect an interest, or create a substantial risk of inconsistent obligations. The court concluded that complete relief could be provided without CSCL because Hinchliffe had acquired the trademark rights. It also found that Michaels had not shown CSCL was claiming an interest related to the action. The court therefore found no basis to join CSCL as an involuntary plaintiff.

Ruling

Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron denied Michaels’s motion to substitute or join. Because that motion was denied, the court stated that Michaels’s related request for expedited discovery was moot. The opinion does not state a separate disposition of the expedited-discovery request beyond finding it moot.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.