Hayes v. ASCAP
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-01883
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Hayes v. ASCAP, Judge Swain granted reconsideration, vacated the dismissal and judgment, reopened the action, and corrected the defendant’s name.
Arika A. Hayes’s case was reopened, and her signed application to proceed without prepaying filing fees was accepted for filing. The docketed defendant’s name was changed from “ACAP” to “ASCAP.”
What happened
In Arika A. Hayes v. ASCAP, the court had previously dismissed the action without prejudice because Hayes had not submitted a signed application to proceed without paying filing fees. Hayes later submitted an application stating that the signed form was included in her amended complaint.
The court treated Hayes’s submission as a motion to alter or amend the judgment. It found that the signed application appeared in the middle of the amended complaint and that Hayes filed her motion within the required 28-day period.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted the motion, directed the Clerk to vacate the dismissal and judgment, reopened the action, and directed the Clerk to file the signed application. The court also changed the defendant’s docket name from “ACAP” to “ASCAP” and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
The detailed version
- Hayes v. ASCAP · No. 1:24-cv-01883
- Laura Swain
- June 10, 2024
Background
Arika A. Hayes filed the action without a lawyer. The court had directed her to submit a signed application to proceed without prepaying filing fees. On May 29, 2024, the court dismissed the action without prejudice because it concluded that she had not done so.
Hayes then filed a submission stating that she had submitted a signed application as part of her amended complaint. The opinion explains that the signed application appeared on pages 58 and 60 of the 85-page amended complaint, along with another unsigned application.
Motion and Analysis
The court treated Hayes’s submission as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such a motion asks the court to correct a judgment when it overlooked controlling law or factual matters that had already been presented. The court stated that these motions must be filed within 28 days after judgment.
Hayes filed the motion on June 3, 2024, less than 28 days after the judgment. Because she had submitted a signed application, even though it was difficult to locate within the amended complaint, the court granted the motion.
Ruling
The court granted Hayes’s Rule 59(e) motion. It directed the Clerk of Court to vacate the order of dismissal and judgment and reopen the action. It also directed the Clerk to file Hayes’s signed application as an amended application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs.
Hayes indicated that she intended to name ASCAP rather than “ACAP” as the defendant. The court therefore directed the Clerk to change the defendant’s name on the docket to ASCAP.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.