Rasmy v. Marriott International, Inc.
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:16-cv-04865
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Rasmy v. Marriott International, Judge Nathan denied Rasmy’s objections to former counsel’s lien and sanction request without prejudice as premature.
Gebrial Rasmy, his former counsel, and the defendants were affected. Rasmy’s objections to the charging lien and sanctions request were denied without prejudice as premature, and he was ordered to state whether he wished to pursue former counsel’s discovery, protective-order, and expedited-trial requests.
What happened
In Gebrial Rasmy v. Marriott International Inc. et al., former counsel had withdrawn from representing Rasmy and received permission to seek a charging lien—a claim for payment from any money Rasmy might recover. Rasmy then appeared without a lawyer and objected to the lien and asked the court to sanction his former counsel.
The court denied those objections without prejudice because they were premature. It said it would address them only if Rasmy later obtained a monetary award. The court also received former counsel’s requests to compel discovery, protect Rasmy from a deposition, and move up the trial date, but did not decide those requests.
Judge Alison J. Nathan ordered Rasmy to submit a letter by January 4, 2022, stating whether he wished to pursue the requests in former counsel’s motion. The court noted that a jury trial was tentatively scheduled for April 11, 2022, and said it would address pending motions about trial evidence later.
The detailed version
- Rasmy v. Marriott International, Inc. · No. 1:16-cv-04865
- Jed Rakoff
- Dec. 20, 2021
Background
On November 23, 2021, the court granted Rasmy’s attorneys’ request to withdraw based on claimed irreconcilable differences. The court also granted the attorneys a charging lien under New York law if Rasmy recovered an award on his claims. A charging lien is a potential right to payment from money recovered in the case.
On December 16, 2021, Rasmy entered an appearance without a lawyer and filed two letters. He objected to the charging lien and asked the court to sanction his former counsel. The opinion states that Rasmy’s objections were docketed as Nos. 215 and 216.
Rulings on Rasmy’s Objections
The court denied without prejudice Rasmy’s objections to the charging lien and his request for sanctions because they were premature. The court stated that it would resolve the objections only after Rasmy obtained a monetary award for his claims. The order does not decide whether the charging lien is valid or whether sanctions should be imposed.
Former Counsel’s Motion
The court also received a motion and memorandum from Rasmy’s former counsel requesting three forms of relief: an order compelling the defendants to respond to Rasmy’s discovery requests, a protective order concerning the defendants’ deposition notice for Rasmy, and an expedited trial. The motion apparently was mailed after counsel had withdrawn.
The court did not rule on those three requests in this order. Instead, it ordered Rasmy to submit a letter by January 4, 2022, stating whether he wished to pursue any requests made in the motion.
Other Case Information
A jury trial was tentatively scheduled for April 11, 2022. The court stated that it would resolve pending motions in limine—motions concerning what evidence may be presented at trial—in due course. The order resolved docket numbers 215 and 216 and directed the clerk’s office to mail a copy to Rasmy and record the mailing on the public docket.
Disposition
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied Rasmy’s objections without prejudice as premature and ordered him to clarify whether he wished to pursue the discovery, protective-order, and expedited-trial requests. The order did not resolve the underlying claims against Marriott International Inc. and the other defendants.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.