Sometimes, attorneys forget their own best advice. This seems to have been the case with regard to opposing counsel in Douyon v. NY Medical Health Care, PC, et al., 10-cv-3983, currently pending in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, a case in which Schlanger & Schlanger, LLP represents consumer Gabrielle Douyon.
Ms. Douyon came to Schlanger & Schlanger last year after having been harassed at her work by men claiming to be peace officers there to collect an allegedly deficient medical debt. We filed suit on Ms. Douyon’s behalf against the debt collectors and the fake cops under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and awaited a response.
When it finally came, the rambling, disorganized Answer and Counterclaim wasn’t even signed by an attorney, a glaring deficiency that Defendants’ counsel did not correct even when brought to his attention.
The judge struck both the Answer and the Counterclaim as improper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson put it, “[t]he Counterclaim fails to articulate a legal cause of action and fails to state which of Defendants are purported to be asserting the claim. As such the Counterclaim is insufficient to put Plaintiff on notice of the claim asserted and makes it nearly impossible for Plaintiff to articulate a response….Furthermore, because Plaintiff will now have to respond to a second pleading, I respectfully recommend to Judge Feuerstein that Plaintiff be awarded the reasonable costs and attorney’s fees associated with responding to Defendants’ amended counterclaims.” Click here for full decision.
The decision serves as a strong reminder that the sloppy practices that New York’s state courts sometimes leave unchecked are not countenanced in Federal Court, where District Courts routinely enforce procedural and pleadings-related rules.
