Ravi v. Citigroup Global Markets Holdings, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-02223
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ravi v. Citigroup, Judge Vyskocil ordered service and denied plaintiffs’ request for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal.
The order affects plaintiffs Umashankar Ravi and Saritha Ravi, who must serve Citigroup Global Markets Holdings, Inc. within the stated period and whose request for pro bono counsel was denied without prejudice to renewal.
What happened
Umashankar Ravi and Saritha Ravi, representing themselves, paid the filing fees to sue Citigroup Global Markets Holdings, Inc. The court directed the Clerk to issue a summons and directed the plaintiffs to serve the summons and complaint within 90 days after issuance.
The court warned that if the plaintiffs neither served Citigroup nor requested more time within that period, it could dismiss their claims for failure to prosecute under Rules 4 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Judge Mary Kary Vyskocil denied the plaintiffs’ request for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal later because the case’s merits were not yet clear and the plaintiffs had not adequately explained their efforts to find a lawyer. The Clerk was directed to terminate that motion and mail the plaintiffs an information package.
The detailed version
- Ravi v. Citigroup Global Markets Holdings, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-02223
- Gregory Woods
- Apr. 7, 2021
Background
Umashankar Ravi and Saritha Ravi brought this action against Citigroup Global Markets Holdings, Inc. The opinion states that the plaintiffs were proceeding without lawyers and had paid the filing fees.
Service of the lawsuit
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for Citigroup. The plaintiffs were directed to serve the summons and complaint within 90 days after the summons was issued. The court stated that, if the plaintiffs did not serve Citigroup or request an extension within that period, it might dismiss the claims for failure to prosecute under Rules 4 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Request for counsel
The plaintiffs asked the court to request pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer who would represent them without charging them. The court explained that relevant considerations include the apparent strength of the case, the plaintiffs’ efforts to obtain a lawyer, and their ability to investigate and present the case without a lawyer. The court stated that the case’s merits were not yet clear and that the plaintiffs had not adequately explained their efforts to obtain a lawyer.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kary Vyskocil denied the motion for counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later stage. The order also directed the Clerk to terminate the motion and mail the plaintiffs an information package.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.