U.S. Bank Trust Company v. Jericho Plaza Portfolio LLC
U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association, as Trustee for the Benefit of the Certificateholders of Natixis Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2022- JERI v. Jericho Plaza Portfolio LLC
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-00917
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
U.S. Bank Trust v. Jericho Plaza, Judge Engelmayer directed the Clerk to seek volunteer counsel for JE Grant on a limited summary-judgment issue.
JE Grant Associates LLC is directly affected because the Clerk will seek volunteer counsel to advise it only about the claim in its summary-judgment motion. Any volunteer attorney would have only the limited responsibilities described in the order.
What happened
In U.S. Bank Trust Company v. Jericho Plaza Portfolio LLC, JE Grant Associates LLC asked the court to help it obtain counsel. The opinion says JE Grant had prematurely sought summary judgment to pursue $78,514.13 allegedly owed for maintenance services involving real property in the case.
The court directed the Clerk to try to find a volunteer lawyer for JE Grant. The lawyer's role would be limited to advising JE Grant about the claim raised in its summary-judgment motion, and the lawyer would have no other duties in the case.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer explained that volunteer counsel might not be found and that the court does not provide funds to hire lawyers in civil cases. He also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.
The detailed version
- U.S. Bank Trust Company v. Jericho Plaza Portfolio LLC · No. 1:24-cv-00917
- Paul Engelmayer
- Apr. 18, 2024
Background
JE Grant Associates LLC, described in the opinion as a single-member limited liability company, filed an application asking the court to request counsel. The opinion states that JE Grant had prematurely moved for summary judgment, seeking to recover $78,514.13 allegedly owed for unpaid services provided in maintaining certain real property involved in the case.
Counsel requested
The court directed the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate pro bono counsel—an attorney volunteering legal services—for JE Grant. The representation would be limited to advising JE Grant on the claim it sought to assert in its summary-judgment motion. The volunteer lawyer would not be responsible for any other part of JE Grant's representation. After the lawyer filed a notice stating that the limited representation was complete, the representation would end and the lawyer would have no further obligations to JE Grant or the court in this matter.
The court noted that volunteer counsel could seek reimbursement of certain out-of-pocket expenses under the court's Pro Bono Fund order. It also warned that the shortage of volunteer attorneys could cause a lengthy delay, that no funds were available to hire counsel in civil cases, and that there was no guarantee that an attorney would accept the matter.
Appeal ruling
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. This order did not decide the merits of JE Grant's asserted claim or its summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.