Aliksanyan v. Verizon et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying 14 Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class. For the reasons discussed in the attached Order, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion to certify a class. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 4/10/2017. (Hawkins, Salah)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------GARO ALIKSANYAN,
Plaintiff,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
ORDER
17-CV-394 (MKB)

v.
VERIZON, N.Y. STATE PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION and FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Garo Aliksanyan, proceeding pro se, commenced the above-captioned action on
September 20, 2016, against Defendants Verizon, the New York State Public Service
Commission and the Federal Communications Commission in Civil Court of the City of New
York, County of Queens. (Notice of Removal, Docket Entry No. 1; State Ct. Compl., annexed to
Notice of Removal as Ex. A.) The Federal Communications Commission removed the action to
this Court on January 15, 2017. (Notice of Removal 1.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants acted
unlawfully when they denied his “recertification” for “Lifeline Program landline telephone”
service. (Am. Compl. 1, 6–10, Docket Entry No. 9.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants actions
violated his rights under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution, Articles One and Six of the New York State Constitution, and numerous other New
York state laws. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff seeks damages and declaratory relief. (Id. at 3, 12–13.)
On April 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class, consisting of “the tens of
thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of similarly situated qualified Lifeline New York State
applicants” who are unable “to seek redress from the courts.” (Pl. Mot. to Certify a Class

(“Pl. Mot.”), Docket Entry No. 14; Pl. Aff. in Supp. of Pl. Mot. ¶ 2, annexed to Pl. Mot.)
Plaintiff, however, is proceeding pro se and therefore may not prosecute a class action as lead
counsel and serve as the class representative. See Rodriquez v. Eastman Kodak Co., 88 F. App’x
470, 471 (2d Cir. 2004) (“Although plaintiffs have a right to proceed pro se in civil actions . . . , a
pro se plaintiff may not seek to represent the interests of third-parties. Moreover, it is well
established that a pro se class representative cannot adequately represent the interests of other
class members.” (citing Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2d Cir. 1998))); Iannaccone, 142
F.3d at 558 (holding that “because pro se means to appear for one’s self, a person may not appear
on another person’s behalf in the other’s cause . . . [but] must be litigating an interest personal to
him”); Phillips v. Tobin, 548 F.2d 408, 413 (2d Cir. 1976) (“Ability to protect the interests of the
class depends in part on the quality of counsel, and we consider the competence of a layman
representing himself to be clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of others.” (citation
omitted)); Bank v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., No. 12-CV-5572, 2014 WL 4258932, at *2
(E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2014) (“Indeed it is well settled in this Circuit that ‘a pro se plaintiff may not
bring an action in which he will serve as both class representative and class counsel.’” (quoting
Jaffe v. Captial One Bank, No. 09-CV-4106, 2010 WL 691639, at *10 (S.D.N.Y Mar. 1, 2010))).

2

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to certify a class based on his legal
inability to represent the class.

SO ORDERED:
s/ MKB
MARGO K. BRODIE
United States District Judge
Dated: April 10, 2017
Brooklyn, New York

3