AASIR AZZARMI, Plaintiff, Pro Se v. DONALD NEUBAUER, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, et. al, DOES 1-10, et. al, Defendants

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: November 6, 2025
• Docket: 7:20-cv-09155
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

does not describe in more detail his efforts to obtain counsel on his own, this Motion is denies without prejudice. Plaintiff : . may renew his Motion and describe an 1 AZzarDil d new circumstances or efforts to obtain y . Inglewood Ave. counsel as the case proceeds. > Inglewood, CA 90304 ~ (323) 632-8531 So ordered. 3 || azatata@yahoo.com 1 AASIR AZZARMLI, PRO SE PLAINTIFF Ans 5 11/6/2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (S.D.N.Y) 8 g 10 AASIR AZZARMI, ) Case No: 7:20-cv-09155-KMK it Plaintiff, Pro Se ) 12 ) LETTER MOTION FOR V, ) APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO ) COUNSEL 14 DONALD NEUBAUER, ) SEDGWICK CLAIMS ) 1s MANAGEMENT SERVICES, et. al ) 16 DOES 1-10, et. al ) Defendants ) 17 ) ) 18 ) 19 ) ) 20 ) 21 )

23 24 25 26 27 28

LETTER MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO COUNSEL

1 ||Dear Honorable Court, Plaintiff, who is pro se, renews Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel. ° Plaintiff, who is pro se, understands that the Court can not force, order or demand an 4 ||attorney to represent Plaintiff pro bono, as a result of granting this motion and ; Plaintiff does not expect this. However, Plaintiff is simply requesting that the Court grant this to see if perhaps an attorney may want to volunteer as pro bono counsel before discovery. Perhaps a new attorney may want to gain some experience or 7 ||\perhaps someone is retired and wants to stay busy and get out of the house. In the 3 ||very least and/or in the alternative, because Sedgwick,(in joint pre-trial scheduling 5 letter) does not want to even attempt mediation, already declined to attend any settlement conference after discovery ends with magistrate judge, Plaintiff is requesting the Court grant this motion for appointment of pro bono counsel, in the 11 ||very least, for jury trial. Plaintiff, who is pro se, does not have any experience and ||has never had a jury trial. Therefore, if the Court is not currently inclined to grant Plaintiff's motion for appointment of pro bono counsel for whatever reason, Plaintiff requests the ability to renew this motion before the jury trial. 14 LEGAL STANDARD 15 Plaintiff meets all Hodge factors. .Desrameaux v. Delta Air Lines Inc., 2:15- CV-347(CBA) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2018)(Because Desrameaux survives the instant dispositive motion, the Court sua sponte raises the issue of appointment of *7 bono counsel...Hodge v. Police 802 F.2d 58, 60(2d Cir. 1986). Still, the Court is ||"should first determine," as a threshold requirement, whether Desrameaux's "position io ||Seems likely to be of substance." Id. at 61. If yes, the Court should then consider... any special reason in that case why appointment of counsel would be more likely to Illead toa just determination. ..it is clear to the Court that Desrameax's position has 21 ||"some merit." Barrington v. New York, 806 F. Supp. 2d 730, 751(S.D.N.Y. 2011); see >2 also Johnston v. Maha, 606 F.3d 39,41 (2d Cir. 2010) (requiring only "some likelinood of merit"). She need not make a "prima facie showing’ or even "survive a dispositive ~~ ||motion," see Ferrelli v. River Manor Health Care Ctr., 323 F.3d196, 204 (2d Cir. 24 ||2003), yet she did both here. Desrameaux made a prima facie showing of racial 25 ||discrimination and contract breach... Accordingly, Desrameaux has not made "mere bald assertions” that "technically . . . suffice to avert summary judgment" but otherwise disentitle her to pro bono counsel. Hodge, 802 F.2d at 60. The Court <7 accordingly turns to the other Hodgefactors....the Court finds that the trial likely will 28 ||center on testimonies of dueling witnesses(Medina and Desrameaux), and that counsel would be exceedingly helpful in such circumstances. As the Second Circuit LETTER MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO COUNSEL

1 ||has advised, "[i]f a case's factual issues turn on credibility, this should weigh on the Side of appointing counsel since ‘it is more likely that the truth will be exposed where both sides are represented by those trained in the presentation of evidence and in > || cross-examination." Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61 (quoting Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 4 ||888(7th Cir. 1981) (per curiam)).”) 5 Respectfully Submitted, 6 7 || DATE: 11/03/2025 /s/ 8 AASIR AZZARMI, PRO SE PLAINTIFF 9 10 PROOF OF SERVICE 11 12 ||I, AASIR AZZARMI, declare under penalty of perjury that on 11/05/2025, I served a 13 ||copy of the attached: “LETTER MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO 14 ||} COUNSEL” on Defendant Sedgwick’s attorney Peter Shapiro. 15 |) x __ E-MAIL —[ have served Defendant’s attorney Peter Shapiro. via email. ||T declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that +8 |! the foregoing is true and correct. 19 °° l/Executed on November 5, 2025 s/ AASIR AZZARMI 23 PRO SE PLAINTIFF 24 25 26 27 28