D'Arrigo Bros Co. of New York, Inc. v. Jefe Produce LLC

Background

The case arises under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930, a federal law governing transactions involving perishable agricultural goods. The plaintiffs, described as produce dealers, allege that Jefe Produce LLC failed to pay for produce that the plaintiffs sold and delivered. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees from Jefe Produce and Jeung S. Lee, identified as Jefe Produce’s sole member.

The court previously entered a preliminary injunction that, among other things, prohibited the defendants from transferring assets placed in a statutory trust for the plaintiffs’ benefit and required the defendants to provide documents and records relevant to collecting those funds. The plaintiffs later sought civil contempt sanctions, alleging that Lee had not cooperated in collecting Jefe Produce’s accounts receivable and had not produced certain financial records. The plaintiffs asked for an order that could result in Lee’s custody for the duration of the contempt.

Lee applied for the court to request volunteer counsel. In letters responding to the contempt dispute, he stated that he had tried to comply with the injunction but had difficulty understanding his obligations because of his limited command of English and unfamiliarity with the American legal system.

Legal Standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request an attorney to represent a person who cannot afford counsel. In a civil case, the court is not required to provide a lawyer, cannot appoint one through public funds, and instead may ask a lawyer to volunteer. The Second Circuit’s framework requires the court first to determine whether the person is indigent and whether the person’s position appears likely to have substance. If those requirements are met, the court may consider factors including the person’s ability to investigate and present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and any special reason why counsel would likely produce a fairer result.

Court’s Analysis

The court found, based on Lee’s sworn financial application, that he was indigent. Although the court’s earlier preliminary relief indicated that it viewed the defendants as unlikely to succeed on the merits of the plaintiffs’ underlying case, the court separately found that Lee’s position concerning the contempt dispute was likely to have substance. Specifically, the court considered potentially significant Lee’s argument that his noncompliance resulted from difficulty with English and lack of knowledge of American law.

The court identified three reasons supporting a request for volunteer counsel for settlement purposes. First, the case involved relatively complex legal issues and equitable relief that a non-lawyer, particularly one who does not speak English natively, could reasonably have difficulty understanding. Second, counsel could help Lee understand the injunction’s obligations and could make negotiation and settlement more effective. Third, the plaintiffs sought contempt relief that could result in Lee’s incarceration. The court noted that civil contempt proceedings do not automatically require appointed counsel, but that fairness concerns are heightened when incarceration is sought in an unusually complex matter.

Disposition

The court granted Lee’s Application for the Court to Request Counsel. The request was limited to representing Lee in connection with a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger. The court clarified that lawyers volunteer in civil cases, that there was no guarantee a lawyer would accept the matter, and that Lee should be prepared to proceed without counsel. The order did not decide the underlying claims, the contempt motion, or whether Lee should be incarcerated.