Gavel v. Wow Payments LLC
- Figueredo
- 1:20-cv-03475
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gavel v. Wow Payments, Magistrate Judge Figueredo denied Kofi Korang’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice because his application omitted key information.
Kofi Korang’s request for volunteer counsel was denied without prejudice. The opinion also notes that default judgment had already been entered against him on claims under the New York City Human Rights Law and for battery and assault.
What happened
In Gavel v. Wow Payments LLC et al., Defendant Kofi Korang asked the court to appoint a volunteer lawyer for him. The application was dated May 24, 2022.
The court said it considers the case’s merits, the person’s ability to pay for a private lawyer, efforts to find a lawyer, lawyer availability, and the person’s ability to handle the case alone. Korang’s application did not describe his efforts to obtain a lawyer or address whether he could pay for one. The court also noted that default judgment had already been entered against him on the plaintiff’s claims under the New York City Human Rights Law and for battery and assault.
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo denied Korang’s request without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Gavel v. Wow Payments LLC · No. 1:20-cv-03475
- Figueredo
- June 3, 2022
Background
Defendant Kofi Korang applied for pro bono counsel, meaning a volunteer lawyer, in an application dated May 24, 2022. The opinion does not provide additional details about the underlying claims beyond stating that default judgment had already been entered against Korang on Plaintiff’s claims under the New York City Human Rights Law and for battery and assault.
Legal standard
The court applied the standard for requests for pro bono counsel. The factors include the merits of the case, the applicant’s ability to pay for private counsel, efforts to obtain a lawyer, the availability of counsel, and the applicant’s ability to gather facts and address the issues without a lawyer. The court stated that the merits receive the most attention.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Korang’s application did not describe the efforts he had made to obtain counsel and did not address his financial ability to pay for private counsel. The court also considered the fact that default judgment had already been entered against him on the identified claims.
Ruling
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo denied Korang’s application without prejudice. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 38.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.