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 judgment, but allowed a dismissal motion.
Chaim Friedman was not allowed to represent the other individual defendants and was not allowed to seek cancellation of the Rockland County judgment in this court, but he was allowed to seek permission to dismiss the federal complaint. Libe Friedman and Chana Friedman received an extension to respond to the complaint. The order also affected Eisenberger and the remaining defendants by setting the schedule for the proposed dismissal motion.
What happened
Eisenberger v. Friedman concerns a lawsuit Seth Eisenberger filed against Chaim Friedman, Libe Friedman, Chana Friedman, and several companies. The opinion addresses filings by the individual defendants and a request by Chaim Friedman to change how the case would proceed.
Chaim Friedman asked to represent himself and his family members and other co-defendants without a lawyer. He also asked the federal court to cancel a judgment from a case in Rockland County Supreme Court or dismiss Eisenberger’s lawsuit. Libe Friedman and Chana Friedman separately received more time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint.
Judge Nelson S. Roman denied Chaim Friedman’s request to represent the other defendants and denied his request to cancel the state-court judgment because that matter was not before the federal court. Judge Roman granted Chaim Friedman permission to file a motion asking to dismiss the complaint and set deadlines for the motion papers.
The detailed version
- Eisenberger v. Friedman · No. 7:22-cv-03025
- Nelson Roman
- June 28, 2022
Background
Seth Eisenberger filed this lawsuit 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 individual defendants filed documents that appeared to be answers to the complaint. Chaim Friedman also filed a document titled “Motion to Vacate.”
Rulings
The court denied Chaim Friedman’s request to represent himself and also represent his family members and other co-defendants without lawyers. The court explained that a person proceeding without a lawyer may represent only himself or herself. It stated that each individual defendant must 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.
The court denied Chaim Friedman’s request to cancel a judgment issued in a case pending in Rockland County Supreme Court. The court stated that the state-court matter was not before it and that it therefore lacked jurisdiction over that action.
The court treated Chaim Friedman’s alternative request to dismiss this federal case as a request for permission to file a motion to dismiss the complaint. The court granted that request and set the following schedule: Chaim Friedman’s moving papers were to be served by July 28, 2022; Eisenberger’s opposition was to be served by August 29, 2022; and Chaim Friedman’s reply was to be served by September 28, 2022. The motion documents were to be filed on September 28, 2022, and the parties were directed to mail two courtesy copies to chambers.
Other Direction
The Clerk of Court was directed to send copies of the order to the defendants proceeding without lawyers and record service on the docket.
Disposition
The court denied Chaim Friedman’s request to represent other defendants, denied his request to vacate the state-court judgment, granted Libe Friedman and Chana Friedman an extension to respond to the complaint, and granted Chaim Friedman permission to file a motion to dismiss. Judge Nelson S. Roman signed the order on June 28, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.