Keawsri v. Ramen-ya Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:17-cv-02406
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Keawsri v. Ramen-ya Inc., Judge Liman denied Miho Maki’s request for appointed counsel but extended her deadline to address her Fifth Amendment assertion.
Miho Maki was denied appointed counsel but received an extension until August 29, 2023, to address the implications of her Fifth Amendment assertion.
What happened
Keawsri v. Ramen-ya Inc. involved defendant judgment debtor Miho Maki’s request for the court to appoint a lawyer to represent her. The request arose during proceedings concerning a motion to enforce a judgment.
The court found that Maki did not meet the legal standards for appointed counsel. It noted that lawyers had already filed notices of appearance for her, including bankruptcy counsel, and that the enforcement hearing had ended, with all sides having presented their evidence. The court also found that Maki had not shown that her issues were substantial, required more investigation or evidence, or depended on witness credibility.
Judge Liman denied Maki’s request for appointed counsel. He found that the request was filed immediately before her brief was due and appeared intended to delay the proceedings, but the court extended her deadline until August 29, 2023, to address the consequences of her reliance on the Fifth Amendment.
The detailed version
- Keawsri v. Ramen-ya Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-02406
- Lewis Liman
- Aug. 25, 2023
Background
Defendant judgment debtor Miho Maki asked the court to appoint counsel to represent her. The court explained that federal law permits it to request that an attorney represent an indigent person who cannot employ counsel. The court applied the factors from Hodge v. Police Officers, including whether the person’s position appears likely to have substance, whether the case requires substantial factual investigation, the person’s ability to present the case, whether cross-examination and credibility issues are central, the complexity of the legal issues, and any special reason appointment would promote a just result. The possible delay caused by an appointment also was relevant.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that Maki did not satisfy those standards. First, the court stated that Maki appeared to be represented: Mr. Kirton had filed a notice of appearance, and Douglas J. Pick had filed a notice of appearance as Maki’s bankruptcy counsel. The court also noted that it had withdrawn the reference to the Bankruptcy Court concerning Maki’s bankruptcy filing and the motion to enforce.
The court further found that Maki had not shown that her issues were likely to be substantial, that they required additional factual investigation, that more evidence needed to be presented, or that credibility disputes were central. The hearing on the motion to enforce had concluded, and all sides had rested. The court stated that the evidence established, among other things, that Maki had placed money with her accountant to avoid judgment creditors.
Ruling
Judge Liman denied Maki’s request for appointed counsel. The court found that the request was filed at the last moment, immediately before Maki’s brief was due concerning the implications of her assertion of the Fifth Amendment, and concluded that the request was made to delay the proceedings. The court nevertheless exercised its discretion to extend Maki’s deadline until August 29, 2023, to address what consequences should follow from her assertion of the Fifth Amendment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.