Bizelia v. Clinton Towers Management
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-08065
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Bizelia v. Clinton Towers Management, Judge Wang granted Defendants’ request for pro bono counsel and directed the Clerk to seek a volunteer attorney.
The defendants, whose motion for appointment of pro bono counsel was granted, and the plaintiffs, whose case will proceed while the Clerk seeks volunteer counsel for the defendants.
What happened
In Bizelia v. Clinton Towers Management, the plaintiffs filed the case without lawyers, while the defendants initially had counsel. That counsel later withdrew, and an attorney employed by the defendants appeared as pro bono counsel but expressed concern about litigating the case and handling discovery.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to appoint pro bono counsel because counsel was necessary to effectively litigate the case. The court directed the Clerk of Court to try to find a volunteer attorney and closed the defendants’ motion. The court also explained that a volunteer might not be found and that the defendants would not have to retain a volunteer attorney who contacted them.
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang issued the order. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying claims; it addressed representation for the defendants and the search for volunteer counsel.
The detailed version
- Bizelia v. Clinton Towers Management · No. 1:20-cv-08065
- John Cronan
- Mar. 12, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs filed this action without lawyers on September 29, 2020. The defendants initially appeared through Rivkin Radler LLP, which filed an answer on March 23, 2021. After the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, the defendants filed another answer.
The court granted Rivkin Radler LLP’s motion to withdraw on October 18, 2023, and stayed proceedings for 30 days so the defendants could seek alternative or pro bono counsel. On November 21, 2023, Michelle Piantadosi, an attorney employee of the defendants, appeared as pro bono counsel. After a February 8, 2024 status conference, Piantadosi reported difficulty working through discovery with the plaintiffs’ pro bono counsel and expressed concern about her ability to litigate the case. The court directed her to file any motion for appointment of counsel by February 16, 2024.
Motion and Ruling
The defendants moved for appointment of counsel. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang granted the motion, stating that appointment of counsel was necessary for the defendants to effectively litigate the case.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to try to locate a volunteer pro bono attorney to represent the defendants and directed the Clerk to close the motion. The court explained that the Pro Bono Fund may reimburse certain out-of-pocket expenses for qualifying pro bono counsel, but that the court relies on volunteer attorneys rather than drawing from a fund to pay counsel. It also explained that finding a volunteer could take time, that a volunteer might ultimately decline representation, and that the defendants would not be required to retain a volunteer attorney who contacted them.
Effect of the Order
This was an order about representation and case administration. It did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims or the defendants’ defenses.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.