Lerer v. The Spring Valley Fire Department, Inc.
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:19-cv-10714
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lerer v. The Spring Valley Fire Department, Judge Seibel ordered Lerer not to contact defendants about the lawsuit without counsel Lyon’s authorization.
Andrew Lerer may not contact the defendants or their representatives about this lawsuit without Christopher F. Lyon’s authorization; the defendants and their representatives are covered by the order.
What happened
In Lerer v. The Spring Valley Fire Department, Inc., Andrew Lerer, who represented himself, intended to contact the defendants directly about settling the lawsuit. Defense lawyer Christopher F. Lyon told the court that he had instructed Lerer not to do so.
Lerer believed he could contact the fire department because Lyon represented the Incorporated Village of Spring Valley, not the entity named in Lerer’s complaints. The defendants had consistently argued that Lerer had incorrectly named the fire department instead of the village.
Judge Cathy Seibel ruled that Lyon represented the defendants in this case and ordered that Lerer not contact any defendant or any defendant’s representative about the lawsuit without Lyon’s authorization. The order says Lerer may bring evidence to the court if he believes Lyon is representing a defendant against that defendant’s wishes.
The detailed version
- Lerer v. The Spring Valley Fire Department, Inc. · No. 7:19-cv-10714
- Cathy Seibel
- Nov. 2, 2020
Background
The court received an email from defense counsel Christopher F. Lyon, copying Andrew Lerer, who was representing himself. Lyon reported that Lerer intended to contact the defendants directly to discuss settlement. Lyon said he had asked Lerer not to contact his clients, but Lerer refused because he believed Lyon represented the Incorporated Village of Spring Valley rather than The Spring Valley Fire Department, Inc., the entity named in Lerer’s complaints.
The opinion states that the defendants had consistently argued that Lerer had incorrectly named the fire department and that the proper defendant was the Incorporated Village of Spring Valley. The court also referred to an earlier related proceeding in which the village was described as having been incorrectly sued under the fire department’s name.
Ruling
The court concluded that the naming issue did not change the fact that Lyon represented the defendants in this case. The court ordered that Lerer could not contact any defendant, or any representative of any defendant, about the lawsuit without Lyon’s authorization. The court stated that Lerer could present evidence to the court if he had reason to believe a defendant was being represented by Lyon against that defendant’s wishes.
This order addressed communications with represented parties; the opinion did not decide the underlying claims or the merits of the lawsuit.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.