Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 23, 2023

Pardovani v. Crown Building Maintenance Co.

Judge
Sidney Stein
Docket
1:15-cv-09065
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Pardovani v. Crown Building Maintenance, Judge Stein denied Pardovani’s motion to appoint counsel after his jury trial.

Who this affects

John Pardovani, whose motion for appointment of counsel was denied.

What happened

In Pardovani v. Crown Building Maintenance Co., a jury had already tried the case in November 2022 and awarded John Pardovani a $1.8 million money judgment.

Pardovani later asked the court to appoint a lawyer to represent him. The court considered whether his claims appeared substantial and whether he could investigate important facts, among other factors. Because the case had already gone to trial, the court found that Pardovani had not met the required factors.

Judge Sidney H. Stein denied Pardovani’s motion for appointed counsel. The court also noted that requests for free volunteer lawyers exceed the available supply and directed the clerk to mail Pardovani a copy of the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Pardovani v. Crown Building Maintenance Co. · No. 1:15-cv-09065
Judge
Sidney Stein
Date
May 23, 2023

Background

John Pardovani’s action against Crown Building Maintenance Co., doing business as Able Building Maintenance, Jazz at Lincoln Center, Inc., Richard Cruz, and Joe Miele had been tried before a jury in November 2022. The jury returned a $1.8 million money judgment for Pardovani. The opinion also states that the court had denied Pardovani’s motion for reconsideration and to alter or amend the judgment in an earlier order.

Motion and Legal Standard

On January 11, 2023, Pardovani moved for appointment of counsel. The court applied factors identified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, including whether the litigant’s claim appeared likely to be substantial and whether the litigant could investigate important facts. The court noted that the action had already been tried to a verdict.

Ruling

The court found that Pardovani had not satisfied the relevant factors and denied his motion. The court also observed that the demand for volunteer lawyers exceeds the supply of lawyers willing to represent civil litigants without charge. Judge Sidney H. Stein directed the clerk to mail Pardovani a copy of the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.