From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Freedom Calls Foundation v. Bukstel

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Jan 10, 2006
No. 05 CV 5460 (SJ)(VVP) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2006)

Opinion

No. 05 CV 5460 (SJ)(VVP).

January 10, 2006

HOLLAND KNIGHT LLP New York, NY By Christelette Angelika Hoey, Esq., Tamara F. Carmichael, Esq., Attorneys for Plaintiff.

EDWARD BUKSTEL Blue Bell, PA Defendant Pro Se.


MEMORANDUM ORDER


Plaintiff Freedom Calls ("Plaintiff"), a New York non-profit corporation, brought this action against defendant Edward Bukstel ("Defendant"), acting pro se, alleging Defendant engaged in ongoing acts of unfair competition and cybersquatting in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(a), (d), New York state unfair competition law, and New York state common law.

Defendant denies Plaintiff's allegations and asserts various counterclaims and third-party claims, including retaliatory termination, fraud, embezzlement, negligence, breach of contract, defamation, and breach of fiduciary responsibility, against Plaintiff and its current directors and officers.

Before this Court is Petitioner's application for appointment of counsel.

The standard in this circuit for appointment of pro bono counsel in civil cases is set forth in Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1989). The court emphasized that the threshold inquiry is "whether the indigent's position was likely to be one of substance." 877 F.2d at 172. See also Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986). Only where the plaintiff passes this test of likely merit should the court consider other criteria. See Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172. These criteria include:

plaintiff's ability to obtain representation independently, and his ability to handle the case without assistance in the light of the required factual investigation, the complexity of the legal issues, and the need for expertly conducted cross-examination to test veracity. Id.

Having reviewed the Plaintiff's complaint and Defendant's answer, counterclaims, and third-party claims, and having considered the representations made by each party at the pre-trial conference held on January 4, 2006, this Court concludes that Petitioner's position is likely to be one of substance. Defendant's application for appointment of counsel is hereby GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Freedom Calls Foundation v. Bukstel

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Jan 10, 2006
No. 05 CV 5460 (SJ)(VVP) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2006)
Case details for

Freedom Calls Foundation v. Bukstel

Case Details

Full title:FREEDOM CALLS FOUNDATION, a New York corporation, Plaintiff, v. EDWARD…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. New York

Date published: Jan 10, 2006

Citations

No. 05 CV 5460 (SJ)(VVP) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2006)