United Guardianship Services v. Lurio
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-07046
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In United Guardianship Services v. Lurio, Judge Abrams ordered UGS to report on obtaining counsel and warned of dismissal if it did not comply.
United Guardianship Services and Matilda Vincenty, whose plaintiff-side litigation was subject to the court’s requirement that counsel be obtained; the order also set a compliance deadline affecting the continuation of the action.
What happened
United Guardianship Services serves as successor guardian for Matilda Vincenty’s personal needs and property. The court said UGS and Vincenty did not appear to be represented by a lawyer, as required to litigate for an incompetent person.
The court had repeatedly ordered UGS to provide updates about finding a lawyer. UGS eventually reported that it could not find counsel and asked the court to appoint one; the court denied that request without prejudice because UGS had not indicated that it could not afford a lawyer. UGS then failed to provide another required update.
In the January 6, 2020 order, Judge Ronnie Abrams required UGS to file a letter by January 31 stating whether it intended to continue the case and describing its progress in obtaining representation. The court warned that failure to comply would lead to dismissal as a sanction or for failure to prosecute, but this order did not itself dismiss the action.
The detailed version
- United Guardianship Services v. Lurio · No. 1:19-cv-07046
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 6, 2020
Background
United Guardianship Services (UGS) sued Joseph Lurio, Nancy Tenney, The Institute for Family Health (Amsterdam Center), St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center, Continuum Health Partners, Inc., and John or Jane Doe. UGS identified itself as the successor guardian of the personal needs and property of Matilda Vincenty, the plaintiff. The court stated that UGS and Vincenty did not appear to be represented by counsel, although representation by a lawyer was required for this litigation.
Prior Orders and Noncompliance
The court had repeatedly directed UGS to report on whether Vincenty was represented and on its efforts to obtain counsel. UGS did not provide the first two requested updates. After another order, Joseph Lazar of UGS wrote that UGS had been trying to find a lawyer since August 8, 2019, but that no lawyer it contacted would take the case. He also stated that UGS did not have a lawyer on staff and asked the court to appoint counsel.
On November 21, 2019, the court denied UGS’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice because Lazar had not indicated that UGS or Vincenty could not afford counsel. The court also ordered UGS to state whether it intended to continue the case and, if so, to update the court on its efforts to obtain representation. The court warned that it could dismiss the case if UGS did not obtain counsel. The opinion states that UGS provided no response to that order.
Order
The court ordered UGS to file a written letter by January 31, 2020, stating whether it intended to proceed and, if so, describing its progress in obtaining legal representation for Vincenty. It warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal as a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) and for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The court also directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to UGS. The order itself did not dismiss the action.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.