Hamrit v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-10443
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hamrit v. Citigroup Global Markets, Judge Cronan ordered Hamrit to disclose whether he received legal help preparing his filings.
Houssam Eddine Hamrit, the self-represented plaintiff, must provide the ordered letter; the defendants’ motion remains unresolved.
What happened
In Hamrit v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., the court reviewed Houssam Eddine Hamrit’s opposition to the defendants’ request to require arbitration and dismiss or pause the case. Hamrit was representing himself without a lawyer.
The court ordered Hamrit to file a letter by February 23, 2024, stating whether he is an attorney and whether he received legal help preparing his opposition or complaint. If he received help, he must identify who helped him, which documents they helped with, and whether the help covered all or only part of those documents.
The court said there is nothing improper about a self-represented plaintiff receiving help drafting court papers, but said that information affects how it will interpret Hamrit’s complaint and opposition. Judge Cronan did not decide the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration or to dismiss or pause the case in this order.
The detailed version
- Hamrit v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-10443
- John Cronan
- Feb. 20, 2024
Nature of the Order
This is an order concerning the preparation of Plaintiff Houssam Eddine Hamrit’s filings. It does not decide Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration or their request to dismiss or stay the action.
Court’s Directive
The Court ordered Hamrit, who was proceeding without a lawyer, to file a letter by February 23, 2024. The letter must address:
- whether Hamrit is an attorney; - whether he received legal assistance in drafting his opposition papers or complaint; - if he received assistance, who provided it; - which documents received assistance; and - whether the assistance covered all or only portions of those documents.
The Court directed Hamrit not to disclose other details about any assistance or any legal advice he received.
Reason for the Directive
The Court stated that receiving legal assistance in drafting filings is not improper for a person representing himself. It nevertheless said that whether Hamrit received assistance affects how the Court construes, or interprets, his complaint and opposition to the arbitration motion. The Court noted that Hamrit’s opposition appeared to have been written by someone trained in the law and that the address he provided in the complaint appeared to correspond to an address for a law firm in Washington, D.C.
Disposition
The Court ordered the additional letter and left the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay the action unresolved. The order was signed by John P. Cronan, United States District Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.