Whittingham v. Tress
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-06058
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Whittingham v. Tress, Judge Broderick dismissed corporate-entity claims without prejudice, denied Curtis Van Stuyvesant’s motion, and ordered summonses issued.
Trevor Whittingham’s claims on behalf of Global Investment Strategies Trust and 2201 Seventh Avenue Realty LLC were dismissed without prejudice. Curtis Van Stuyvesant’s motion was denied, while the claims Whittingham brought on his own behalf proceeded to the summons-issuance and service stage.
What happened
In Whittingham v. Tress, Trevor Whittingham brought a lawsuit without a lawyer, alleging that the defendants violated state and federal law. He also attempted to bring claims on behalf of Global Investment Strategies Trust and 2201 Seventh Avenue Realty LLC.
The court dismissed without prejudice the claims brought on behalf of those two entities because a person who is not a lawyer cannot represent an organization in federal court. The court also denied a motion filed by non-party Curtis Van Stuyvesant because he could not represent Whittingham. The clerk was directed to issue summonses for the named defendants.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered Whittingham to serve the summonses and complaint within 90 days after the summonses were issued, or request more time. The court also denied payment-free status for any appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Whittingham v. Tress · No. 1:23-cv-06058
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 18, 2023
Background
Trevor Whittingham filed this action without a lawyer and paid the filing fee. He alleged that the defendants violated his rights under state and federal law. He brought claims on his own behalf and also sought to bring claims on behalf of Global Investment Strategies Trust and 2201 Seventh Avenue Realty LLC.
Claims on Behalf of Organizations
The court explained that a person who is not a licensed lawyer may represent himself but may not represent another person or an artificial entity in federal court. Because Whittingham was not a lawyer, and the two named organizations could not proceed without licensed counsel, the court dismissed without prejudice any claims he sought to bring on their behalf. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal did not bar a later filing that complies with the applicable representation rules.
Curtis Van Stuyvesant’s Motion
Non-party Curtis Van Stuyvesant filed a notice of motion and supporting affidavit under 28 U.S.C. § 455 seeking the recusal of Judge Lewis A. Kaplan based on an alleged conflict of interest. The court found that Van Stuyvesant, who was not a lawyer, could not appear in the action on Whittingham’s behalf. The court therefore denied Van Stuyvesant’s motion.
Summonses and Service
The court directed the clerk to issue summonses for Mark Tress, also known as Moishe Tress, and the other defendants listed in the order. Whittingham was directed to serve each defendant with the summons and complaint within 90 days after the summonses were issued. If he did not serve the defendants or request an extension within that period, the court stated that it might dismiss the claims against them for failure to prosecute.
Appeal and Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick dismissed without prejudice the claims brought on behalf of Global Investment Strategies Trust and 2201 Seventh Avenue Realty LLC, denied Curtis Van Stuyvesant’s motion, and directed the clerk to issue summonses. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied payment-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.