Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 8, 2023

Golubovych v. Saks 5th Avenue, Inc.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:22-cv-09923
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Golubovych v. Saks 5th Avenue, Judge Vyskocil denied counsel without prejudice because it was too early to assess the case’s merits.

Who this affects

Larysa V. Golubovych’s request for court-requested counsel was denied without prejudice, and fee-waiver status was denied for purposes of an appeal.

What happened

In Golubovych v. Saks 5th Avenue, Inc., Larysa V. Golubovych asked the court to request a lawyer for her.

The court said it considers the strength of the case, the plaintiff’s efforts to find a lawyer, and whether the plaintiff can present the case without one. The court gave the most attention to the case’s strength, but said it was too early to evaluate it.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied the request without prejudice, meaning Golubovych may renew it later. The court also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Golubovych v. Saks 5th Avenue, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-09923
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Aug. 8, 2023

Background

Larysa V. Golubovych filed an application asking the court to request counsel for her. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the defendant’s position.

Legal standard

The court identified three factors for deciding an indigent litigant’s request for counsel: the merits of the case, the plaintiff’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and the plaintiff’s ability to gather facts and present the case without assistance. The court stated that the merits receive the most attention among these factors.

Ruling

The court denied the application without prejudice because the case was too early for the court to assess its merits. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the application, identified as ECF 8. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was asked to mail a copy of the order to Golubovych.

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.