Mortimer v. Chapman
- Louis Stanton
- 1:21-cv-00877
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Mortimer v. Chapman, Judge Stanton dismissed Mortimer’s mandamus petition because she had an appeal available and could not represent the corporation.
Kim Mortimer and 60 91st Street Corporation were affected. The court barred Mortimer from representing the corporation, denied Mortimer’s mandamus petition, dismissed the petition, and declined to allow amendment.
What happened
In Mortimer v. Chapman, Kim Mortimer asked the district court to stop or stay a Bankruptcy Court order allowing her removal from a building owned by 60 91st Street Corporation. She also asked the court to require the Bankruptcy Court to end the bankruptcy case.
Mortimer had already appealed the challenged Bankruptcy Court order in a separate case. The court also ruled that Mortimer, who was not a lawyer, could not bring claims for the corporation, even if she was its sole shareholder. The court found that she had not shown that mandamus—an extraordinary order requiring a federal officer or employee to perform a duty—was available.
Judge Stanton denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, dismissed the petition, and declined to allow an amendment because the defects could not be corrected. The order did not prevent Mortimer from continuing her appeals of the Bankruptcy Court’s orders.
The detailed version
- Mortimer v. Chapman · No. 1:21-cv-00877
- Louis Stanton
- Feb. 5, 2021
Background
Kim Mortimer, appearing without a lawyer, filed an application styled as a petition for a writ of mandamus. She sought an order directing the Bankruptcy Court, among other things, to stay its January 22, 2021 order permitting her eviction or removal from property owned by 60 91st Street Corporation. She also asked the district court to compel the Bankruptcy Court to terminate the corporation’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.
Mortimer organized 60 91st Street Corporation, which owned a nine-unit building at 60 West 91st Street in New York, New York. The opinion states that the corporation was in Chapter 11 proceedings and that the Bankruptcy Court appointed Heidi Sorvino as its bankruptcy trustee. Mortimer had separately appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s appointment of Sorvino, and that appeal remained pending. She also separately appealed the January 22 order challenged in this case.
Corporation’s Representation
The court held that Mortimer could not assert claims for the corporation because she was not an attorney. Federal law allows a person to represent herself but does not allow an unlicensed person to represent a corporation. The court stated that this rule applies even when the person is the corporation’s sole shareholder.
Mandamus Petition
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that may require a federal officer or employee to perform a duty owed to the petitioner. To obtain it, a petitioner must show that no other adequate means exist to obtain the requested relief, that the right to relief is clear and indisputable, and that mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances.
The court found that Mortimer did not satisfy any of these requirements. In particular, she had already appealed the Bankruptcy Court order and did not argue that the appeal was inadequate. The court also found that she had not alleged facts showing a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief.
Leave to Amend and Disposition
The court declined to give Mortimer permission to amend because it found that the petition’s defects could not be corrected through amendment. Judge Louis L. Stanton denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. The conclusion states that the petition, filed without prepaying fees, was dismissed. The order did not prevent Mortimer from pursuing her appeals of the Bankruptcy Court’s orders.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.