Rosendale v. Mr. Cooper Group Inc.
- Nelson Roman
- 7:19-cv-09263
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Rosendale v. Mr. Cooper Group Inc., Judge Roman granted Rosendale’s request for volunteer pro bono counsel.
Donald P. Rosendale, who was representing himself, may receive assistance from a volunteer lawyer if one agrees to take the case. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying claims.
What happened
In Rosendale v. Mr. Cooper Group Inc., Donald P. Rosendale was representing himself in claims against Mr. Cooper Group Inc. involving alleged misconduct in servicing his reverse mortgage. Discovery had ended, and the parties planned to seek summary judgment.
The court found that Rosendale was indigent, that several of his claims were likely substantial, and that his stated medical needs could limit his ability to continue without help. The court also concluded that a lawyer could clarify the issues and help produce a quicker, fairer result.
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted Rosendale’s request that the court seek a volunteer lawyer through its pro bono panel. The court cautioned that no lawyer was guaranteed to volunteer and that the case would continue at its normal pace while Rosendale remained prepared to proceed without counsel.
The detailed version
- Rosendale v. Mr. Cooper Group Inc. · No. 7:19-cv-09263
- Nelson Roman
- Feb. 9, 2023
Background
Donald P. Rosendale, who was representing himself, sued Mr. Cooper Group Inc. over alleged misconduct concerning the servicing of his reverse mortgage. His Third Amended Complaint asserted eleven claims. The opinion identifies surviving claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, along with claims for conversion, gross negligence, breach of contract, deceptive business practices under New York General Business Law § 349, reformation, and infliction of emotional distress.
Discovery was complete. At a February 9, 2023 status conference, the parties said they intended to file motions for summary judgment, and Rosendale asked the court to seek volunteer counsel for him.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a federal court may ask its pro bono office to seek a volunteer lawyer for an indigent person representing himself in a civil case. The court first considers whether the person’s position appears likely to have substance. If that threshold is met, the court considers additional factors, including the person’s ability to investigate facts and present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, the need for cross-examination, and any special reason that a lawyer would likely produce a fairer result.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed Rosendale’s application to proceed without paying fees and determined that he qualified as indigent. The court also found that the surviving claims were likely to be substantial because Mr. Cooper had filed an answer, discovery had been completed, and the parties were preparing summary-judgment motions.
The court further found that Rosendale’s ability to continue pursuing the claims was likely limited by his stated medical needs. It concluded that appointing counsel would sharpen the issues and lead to a quicker and fairer result.
Ruling and effect
The court granted Rosendale’s request for the court to seek pro bono counsel. It explained that civil cases do not have government funds for retaining lawyers and that representation depends on volunteers. The court warned that a lengthy period might pass before a lawyer volunteered, that no volunteer was guaranteed, and that the litigation would continue at its normal pace. The order did not decide the merits of Rosendale’s claims or the anticipated summary-judgment motions.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.