Platt v. Michaan
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-04234
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Platt v. Michaan, Judge Ramos denied reconsideration, leaving trustees required to retain a lawyer to represent the Trust.
Timo Platt and Gordon Platt, as co-trustees of the Platt Family Artwork Trust, were required to retain counsel to continue prosecuting the action on behalf of the Trust.
What happened
In Platt v. Michaan, Timо Platt and Gordon Platt, as co-trustees of the Platt Family Artwork Trust, asked the court to reconsider an earlier order requiring them to retain a lawyer to continue the case for the Trust.
The trustees argued that federal law allowed them to conduct their own case, that a trust should not be treated like a corporation, and that Texas decisions supported their position. The court rejected those arguments, explaining that people generally may not represent another person’s or entity’s legal interests without a lawyer. It also noted that the claims concerned the Trust’s alleged ownership of paintings and that the trustees had said their interests were shared with other Trust members.
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied the motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate it. The earlier order requiring the trustees to retain counsel therefore remained in place.
The detailed version
- Platt v. Michaan · No. 1:19-cv-04234
- Edgardo Ramos
- Apr. 22, 2021
Background
Timo Platt and Gordon Platt, acting as co-trustees of the Platt Family Artwork Trust, asked the court to reconsider its April 5, 2021 order instructing them to retain counsel to continue prosecuting the action on behalf of the Trust. The court treated the request as a motion for reconsideration and stated that such a motion requires the moving party to identify controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked.
Arguments and analysis
The trustees relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1654, which says that parties may conduct their own cases personally or through counsel. The court concluded that this provision does not allow individuals to appear without a lawyer when they are representing another person’s or entity’s legal interests. It relied on decisions stating that a person ordinarily may not proceed without counsel on behalf of another person or entity, including a trust with interests beyond those of the individual litigant.
The trustees also argued that the Trust was a legal relationship rather than an artificial entity comparable to a corporation. The court rejected that argument, explaining that the trust arrangement itself was the reason counsel was required: the trustees were seeking relief based on the Trust’s alleged ownership of the paintings, not on their personal ownership. The court also noted that the trustees had not alleged that they were the Trust’s sole beneficial owners and had previously represented that their interests were shared with other Trust members.
The court found the cited Texas decisions nonbinding and distinguishable. It also found a decision concerning how to determine a trust’s citizenship for diversity jurisdiction irrelevant because it did not address representation without a lawyer.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied the trustees’ motion for reconsideration. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion, leaving in place the earlier instruction that the trustees retain counsel to continue the action for the Trust.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.