In Re: Motors Liquidation Company
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-06668
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Re: Motors Liquidation Company, Judge Nathan set appellate deadlines, directed pro se procedures, and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
Marianne OGrady, the appellant, and Motors Liquidation Company Avoidance Action Trust, the appellee, are affected by the briefing schedule and related instructions. The appellant is also affected by the denial of fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Re: Motors Liquidation Company concerns an appeal by Marianne OGrady from a bankruptcy-related matter. The court ordered the appellant to file a brief by February 24, 2020, the appellee to respond by March 9, and the appellant to file any reply by March 23.
The court directed the parties to follow its special procedures for civil cases involving people without lawyers. It also provided information about a legal clinic and explained how the appellant could request more time after first seeking the opposing counsel’s agreement. The order required that a copy be mailed to the appellant and that the mailing be recorded on the public docket.
Judge Alison J. Nathan certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for that appeal. The order addresses scheduling and related procedures, not the merits of the underlying appeal.
The detailed version
- In Re: Motors Liquidation Company · No. 1:19-cv-06668
- Alison Nathan
- Jan. 29, 2020
Background
The caption identifies Motors Liquidation Company as the debtor, Marianne OGrady as the appellant, and Motors Liquidation Company Avoidance Action Trust as the appellee. The case was assigned to the court for all purposes.
Orders on Briefing
The court set the following appellate briefing schedule:
- The appellant’s brief was due by February 24, 2020. - The appellee’s opposition was due by March 9, 2020. - Any appellant reply was due by March 23, 2020.
The court directed the parties to proceed under its Special Rules of Practice in Civil Pro Se Cases, meaning cases involving a party who is not represented by a lawyer.
Information for the Appellant
The order stated that the appellant could consult the pro se legal clinic if she wanted legal advice. It explained that the clinic is operated by the New York Legal Assistance Group, a private organization, and is not part of the court. The order also stated that the clinic cannot accept filings for the court; an unrepresented party must file through the Pro Se Intake Unit.
If the appellant wanted an extension of time, the court directed her first to seek the opposing counsel’s consent and then to submit a letter request to the court through the Pro Se Intake Unit.
Disposition
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. Based on that certification, it denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The court also ordered that the order be mailed to the pro se appellant and that the mailing be noted on the public docket.
This is a procedural order. It sets briefing deadlines and addresses appeal-related filing status; it does not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.