Eisenberger v. Friedman
- Nelson Roman
- 7:22-cv-03025
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Eisenberger v. Friedman, Judge Roman denied Chaim Friedman's requests to represent others and vacate a state-court judgment, while allowing a dismissal motion.
Seth Eisenberger; Chaim Friedman; Libe Friedman; Chana Friedman; Lawrence Plaza Associates LLC; Brewer Estates LLC; Brewer Holdings LLC; Willow Tree LLC; and 34 Second Avenue LLC.
What happened
In Eisenberger v. Friedman, Seth Eisenberger sued Chaim Friedman, Libe Friedman, Chana Friedman, and several limited liability companies. The individual defendants filed responses, and Chaim Friedman filed a document called a motion to vacate.
Chaim asked to represent himself and his family members, vacate a judgment from a Rockland County Supreme Court case, or dismiss this federal case. He also sought permission to file a proposed motion to dismiss the complaint.
The court denied Chaim's request to represent the other individual defendants and denied his request to vacate the state-court judgment because that matter was not before the court. Judge Roman granted Chaim permission to file a motion to dismiss, set briefing deadlines, and granted Libe Friedman and Chana Friedman more time to respond to the complaint.
The detailed version
- Eisenberger v. Friedman · No. 7:22-cv-03025
- Nelson Roman
- June 27, 2022
Background
Seth Eisenberger filed this action against Chaim Friedman, Libe Friedman, Chana Friedman, Lawrence Plaza Associates LLC, Brewer Estates LLC, Brewer Holdings LLC, Willow Tree LLC, and 34 Second Avenue LLC. The opinion states that the individual defendants filed documents that appeared to be answers to the complaint. Chaim Friedman also filed a document titled “Motion to Vacate.”
Requests Concerning Representation
Chaim asked for permission to represent himself and the other individual defendants without a lawyer. The court denied that request because a person representing himself cannot represent other people. The court directed each individual defendant to represent himself or herself or obtain counsel.
The court granted Libe Friedman and Chana Friedman an extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. They were directed to do so by July 11, 2022.
State-Court Judgment
Chaim also asked the court to vacate a judgment in a case pending in Rockland County Supreme Court, or alternatively to dismiss this federal action. The court denied the request to vacate the state-court judgment because that state-court matter was not before the federal court and the federal court did not have jurisdiction over it.
Proposed Motion to Dismiss
The court treated Chaim's request to dismiss this case as a request for permission to file a motion to dismiss the complaint. That request was granted. Chaim's moving papers had to be served, but not filed, by July 28, 2022. Eisenberger's opposition papers had to be served, but not filed, by August 29, 2022, and Chaim's reply papers had to be served by September 28, 2022. All motion documents were to be filed on September 28, 2022, and the parties were directed to mail two courtesy copies of those documents to the judge's chambers.
Disposition
Judge Roman denied Chaim's request to represent the other individual defendants, denied his request to vacate the state-court judgment, granted his request for permission to file a motion to dismiss, and granted Libe Friedman and Chana Friedman an extension to respond to the complaint. The opinion does not decide the merits of the complaint or the proposed motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.