Bizelia v. Clinton Towers Management
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-08065
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Bizelia v. Clinton Towers Management, Magistrate Judge Wang granted reconsideration, withdrew counsel appointments, stayed discovery, and vacated the default certificate.
The order directly affected the entity defendants, the plaintiffs, their attorneys, and the court’s handling of counsel, discovery, and the certificate of default. It withdrew the previously appointed counsel for the defendants, stayed discovery, and vacated the default certificate without deciding the underlying claims.
What happened
In Bizelia v. Clinton Towers Management, the plaintiffs challenged issues involving requests for a larger apartment. The plaintiffs initially filed without lawyers but later received legal assistance. The defendants’ lawyers withdrew, and a defendant’s employee appeared as volunteer counsel. The court had previously appointed counsel for the defendants, leading the plaintiffs to seek reconsideration.
Magistrate Judge Wang treated the plaintiffs’ filings as motions asking the court to reconsider those appointments. The plaintiffs argued that the law allowing courts to appoint counsel applied only to people, not organizations. The opinion also discussed concerns about the defendants’ ability to obtain counsel, the parties’ unequal resources, disputed facts about apartment-transfer applications, and whether more discovery would be useful.
Magistrate Judge Wang granted reconsideration and withdrew the orders appointing counsel for the defendants. She stayed discovery until further order and directed the Clerk to vacate the certificate of default. The order did not decide whether either side would win the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Bizelia v. Clinton Towers Management · No. 1:20-cv-08065
- John Cronan
- Mar. 18, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs filed this case concerning requests for a larger apartment. They initially filed the complaint without counsel and later filed an amended complaint with assistance from the New York Legal Assistance Group. The defendants were represented by Rivkin Radler, LLP, which moved to dismiss on timeliness grounds. The court denied that motion, and Judge Cronan noted that certain defense arguments were fact-specific and could not be raised on a motion to dismiss.
The court later found volunteer representation for the plaintiffs for mediation, and an attorney from Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan entered a limited volunteer appearance for them in May 2023. Discovery disputes followed. Defense counsel later moved to withdraw, and the court granted that motion on October 18, 2023, staying the proceedings for 30 days. After the plaintiffs sought a clerk’s certificate of default, a defendant’s employee, Ms. Piantadosi, appeared as volunteer counsel. The court then issued orders appointing counsel for the defendants.
Motions for reconsideration
The court construed the plaintiffs’ filings at ECF 158 and ECF 160 as motions for reconsideration of the orders at ECF 157 and ECF 159. Those earlier orders had appointed counsel for the defendants. The plaintiffs argued that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 permits appointment of counsel only for a natural person, and that the plaintiffs had not sued a natural person in this case.
Magistrate Judge Wang agreed with that argument. She explained that the case involved entity defendants and raised broader concerns about how organizations with potentially valid defenses can obtain representation when they lack the resources or ability to hire a lawyer. The opinion also noted that the defendants had asserted that they could not lawfully provide the requested housing relief, that the parties disputed whether the plaintiffs qualified for a larger apartment and had submitted the required application, and that important witnesses might be former employees or unavailable.
Ruling and case management
The court stated that the appointment of counsel was not permitted under the circumstances described in the order. It therefore granted reconsideration and withdrew ECF 157 and ECF 159. The order did not resolve the parties’ factual disputes or decide liability on the underlying claims.
The court also stated that further discovery might not be proportional under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), because liability might depend largely on witness credibility. It said that summary judgment or a direct trial might be more efficient, but it did not order either procedure. Discovery was stayed until further order of the Court, with sanctions warned for violating the stay. The court directed the Clerk to vacate ECF 143, the Clerk’s Certificate of Default. The scheduled March 19, 2024 status conference was to proceed, and a supervising Quinn partner was directed to file a notice of appearance and attend.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.