Tatas v. Ali Baba's Terrace, Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-10595
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tatas v. Ali Baba’s Terrace, Judge Ramos denied Tatas’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice because his claims did not yet appear likely to have merit.
Mehmet Emin Tatas’s request for appointed pro bono counsel was denied without prejudice; the order did not appoint counsel but left open the possibility of renewing the request later.
What happened
In Tatas v. Ali Baba’s Terrace, Inc., Mehmet Emin Tatas asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to appoint a lawyer to represent him without charge.
The court explained that it cannot require attorneys to represent people without lawyers in civil cases. Under federal law, however, it may ask its Pro Bono Panel to consider representing a person who qualifies for that assistance. The court must first determine whether the person’s claims appear likely to have merit.
Judge Edgardo Ramos said the court could not make that finding at this stage, although the assessment could change as the case proceeds. He denied the request without prejudice, meaning Tatas may renew it later, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Tatas v. Ali Baba's Terrace, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10595
- Edgardo Ramos
- May 2, 2024
Background
On May 1, 2024, Mehmet Emin Tatas asked the Court to appoint pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer to represent him without charging a fee. The request was filed as Doc. 220.
Legal standard
The Court explained that it cannot require attorneys to represent people without lawyers in civil cases. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court may instead use its discretion to direct the Pro Se Office to ask an attorney from the Court’s Pro Bono Panel to consider representation. The first question is whether the litigant’s position appears likely to have merit. If that threshold is met, the Court may consider additional factors, including the litigant’s ability to handle the case without assistance.
Ruling
The Court stated that it was unable at that time to conclude that Tatas’s claims were likely to have merit. It noted that this assessment could change as the litigation progresses. The application for appointment of pro bono counsel was DENIED without prejudice to possible renewal at a later stage. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 220.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.