Elboute v. Highgate Hotels.LP
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-07609
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Elboute v. Highgate Hotels, Judge Vyskocil allowed Plaintiff to oppose an anticipated dismissal motion and seek counsel without pausing the schedule.
Elaichi Elboute, who was representing himself, and Highgate Hotels, L.P./OYO Hotel Times Sq.; the order primarily set filing, counsel-request, mediation, and service procedures.
What happened
In Elboute v. Highgate Hotels, L.P./OYO Hotel Times Sq., the court responded to a letter from Plaintiff, who was representing himself. The court explained that Plaintiff did not need to respond to Defendant’s earlier letter and could file an opposition to the anticipated motion to dismiss under the existing schedule.
The court said Plaintiff could ask for more time if needed and could file a motion requesting appointed counsel by March 6, 2023. The court also noted that the briefing schedule would continue while any counsel request was pending and that it would try to find free counsel for Plaintiff at mediation.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also provided information about free legal assistance, electronic and other filing methods, and Defendant’s duty to mail Plaintiff copies of filings. This order did not decide the anticipated motion to dismiss or appoint counsel.
The detailed version
- Elboute v. Highgate Hotels.LP · No. 1:22-cv-07609
- Vyskocil
- Feb. 2, 2023
Background
The court received a February 1, 2023 letter from pro se Plaintiff Elaichi Elboute. The court stated that, under its individual practice rules, Plaintiff did not need to respond to Defendant’s pre-motion letter. Defendant was expected to file a motion to dismiss, and the court had already set a briefing schedule.
Court’s directions
The court stated that Plaintiff could file an opposition brief according to the existing schedule and could request an extension of time if necessary. Plaintiff could also file a motion for appointment of counsel by March 6, 2023. The court explained that the briefing schedule for Defendant’s anticipated motion to dismiss would not be paused while Plaintiff sought counsel.
The court referred Plaintiff to the New York Legal Assistance Group’s Legal Clinic for Pro Se Litigants, described as a free legal clinic for people representing themselves in civil lawsuits in the Southern District of New York. The court also noted that, under its mediation referral order, it would try to locate free volunteer counsel to represent Plaintiff at mediation.
Other instructions and disposition
The court encouraged people representing themselves to file documents by email, while also identifying filing by mail or in person as alternatives. It encouraged electronic service consent and reminded Defendants to mail Plaintiff copies of all filings. The Clerk was requested to mail Plaintiff a copy of the order.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered this case-management order. The order did not rule on Defendant’s anticipated motion to dismiss, did not decide the underlying claims, and did not grant a request for appointed counsel.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.