El Bey v. Cubesmart Self Storage
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-00521
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In El Bey v. Cubesmart Self Storage, Judge Woods requested volunteer counsel for an arbitration hearing but did not decide arbitration.
The order directly affected the plaintiff by offering limited volunteer representation for the anticipated arbitration-related hearing and possible settlement discussions. It also affected the defendants because the hearing would examine evidence relevant to their motion to compel arbitration. The underlying disability claims and the arbitration motion were not decided.
What happened
In El Bey v. Cubesmart Self Storage, the plaintiff alleged that her disability prevented her from accessing her storage unit, bringing claims under federal, state, and city disability-rights laws. The defendants asked the court to require arbitration, but the rental agreement did not show the plaintiff’s signature, and the parties disputed whether she agreed to arbitration.
The court found that the plaintiff’s opposition to arbitration was likely substantial and that the hearing would involve disputed evidence and questioning of witnesses. The court therefore directed the clerk to seek a volunteer lawyer for the plaintiff for the limited purpose of the expected hearing and possible settlement discussions.
Judge Gregory H. Woods did not decide whether arbitration was required. He also directed the plaintiff to tell the court within one week whether she wanted volunteer counsel and denied permission to appeal without paying fees for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- El Bey v. Cubesmart Self Storage · No. 1:20-cv-00521
- Gregory Woods
- Aug. 25, 2020
Background
The plaintiff asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She alleged that she was denied access to her storage unit because of her disability. The defendants moved to compel arbitration, meaning they asked the court to require the plaintiff to resolve the dispute through arbitration rather than in court.
The rental agreement containing the arbitration clause did not display a customer signature, although it listed a signing date and time. The defendants submitted an affidavit stating that the plaintiff would have accepted the agreement by signing electronically, but that a technical error prevented her signature from fully transferring. The plaintiff said she did not sign the agreement. During a court conference, she said that her aide signed paperwork for her when she first rented the storage unit.
Request for Limited Volunteer Counsel
The plaintiff had been granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees, and the court therefore found that she qualified as financially unable to afford counsel. Applying the factors established by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the court found that her opposition to arbitration was likely to have substance. The court also found that the other factors favored requesting volunteer counsel, including the need to examine the plaintiff and a defendants’ representative at an evidentiary hearing.
Ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods directed the clerk to attempt to locate volunteer counsel for the plaintiff. The representation was limited to the anticipated evidentiary hearing about whether the plaintiff consented to arbitration and whether she was bound by the arbitration agreement. Counsel could also participate in settlement discussions. The lawyer would not be required to handle other aspects of the case, including responding to a dispositive motion, unless the court expanded the representation. The representation would end after the hearing upon the filing of a notice of completion.
The court did not grant or deny the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. It stated that the evidentiary hearing would help determine that motion. The plaintiff was directed to inform the court within one week whether she wanted a volunteer attorney. The court also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.