Dynamic Enjoy Corporation v. Piccolo by Gambrinus, LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-09909
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dynamic Enjoy v. Piccolo, Judge Broderick denied Vanderbilt’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice.
Defendant Alexander Cesaria Vanderbilt, whose application for the court to request pro bono counsel was denied without prejudice.
What happened
In Dynamic Enjoy Corporation v. Piccolo by Gambrinus, LLC, Defendant Alexander Cesaria Vanderbilt asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer for him. He submitted the application on March 12, 2024.
The court said it needed a more developed record before deciding whether Vanderbilt’s chances of success justified appointing counsel. It therefore denied the application without prejudice, allowing him to renew it if he can show a potentially meritorious claim.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick also directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Document 65 and mail the order to Vanderbilt, whom the order identifies as proceeding without a lawyer.
The detailed version
- Dynamic Enjoy Corporation v. Piccolo by Gambrinus, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09909
- Vernon Broderick
- Mar. 20, 2024
Request for Counsel
On March 12, 2024, Defendant Alexander Cesaria Vanderbilt applied for the court to request pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer who would volunteer to represent him. The order identifies Vanderbilt as a pro se defendant, meaning he was proceeding without a lawyer.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that, before requesting counsel, it must consider the merits of the litigant’s case, the litigant’s ability to pay for private counsel, efforts to obtain a lawyer, whether counsel is available, and the litigant’s ability to gather facts and address the issues without assistance. As a threshold matter, the litigant must show that the claim has substance or a likelihood of success. The court also noted that volunteer attorney time is limited and that counsel should not be appointed indiscriminately.
The court determined that a more fully developed record was necessary before it could decide whether Vanderbilt’s chances of success warranted appointment of counsel.
Disposition
The court denied Vanderbilt’s application for the court to request pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal when the existence of a potentially meritorious claim may be demonstrated. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the open motion at Document 65 and mail a copy of the order to Vanderbilt.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.