Case Activity (194)

1. Order | Filed: July 21, 2017 | Entered: July 21, 2017 Agar v. Advantagecare Physicians et al

   Other Statutory Actions | New York Eastern

   Order on Motion for Reconsideration

   ORDER denying 132 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied. The Court recognizes that it closed the case prior to reviewing Mr. Agar's letter dated July 17, 2017, Dkt. 131 . The Court has since reviewed Mr. Agar's letter, Dkt. 131 and finds that he has still not complied with the Court's orders regarding the continuation of this lawsuit. First, he has not retained counsel for his mother's estate (the "Estate"). Second, he has not established that the criteria permitting him to represent the Estate have been met, namely, that he is the sole beneficiary and that the Estate has no creditors as required under Guest v. Hansen, 603 F.3d 15, 21 (2d Cir. 2010) ("We hold that the administrator and sole beneficiary of an estate with no creditors may appearpro seon behalf of the estate.") By Mr. Agar's own admission, the minor great grandchildren of his mother, who also have individual interests in the Estate, have not renounced their interest. SeeDkt. 131 at ECF 1; Guest603 F.3d at 20 ("Where there are other beneficiaries, 'an action cannot be described as the litigant's own, because the personal interests of the estate, other survivors, and possible creditors... will be affected by the outcome of the proceedings.'") (citing Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 559 (2d Cir.1998)). Moreover, "the individual renunciations are limited to this lawsuit only, and do not restrict the decedent's other assets (i.e., the house) in the decedent's will." Dkt. 131 at ECF 2. Thus, the other beneficiaries remain beneficiaries to the Estate and have only sought to renounce their interest in the present lawsuit. Under a plain reading of Guest, because plaintiff is not the "sole" beneficiary of the Estate, plaintiff may not proceed without counsel. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied, and this case will remain closed. Plaintiff is reminded that the action was dismissed without prejudice. Thus, he may bring this action if he retains counsel at a later time. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 7/21/2017. (Fletcher, Camille)

2. Misc | Filed: July 20, 2017 | Entered: July 20, 2017 Agar v. Advantagecare Physicians et al

   Other Statutory Actions | New York Eastern

   Letter

   Letter objecting to plaintiff's request for reconsideration by Winthrop University Hospital, Winthrop-University Hospital Association (Cinquemani, Rosemary)

3. 192 additional result(s)