Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 27, 2024

Age Reversal Unity v. New York University

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-04808
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Age Reversal Unity v. New York University, Judge Swain ordered Ali Afshar Shandiz to pay fees or amend his fee-waiver application.

Who this affects

Ali Afshar Shandiz and the action he filed on behalf of Age Reversal Unity. The order requires Shandiz to pay the filing fees or submit a complete amended application before the case proceeds.

What happened

Age Reversal Unity and Ali Afshar Shandiz filed this action against New York University and others. Shandiz is representing himself and is also attempting to bring the case on behalf of Age Reversal Unity.

Shandiz asked to proceed without paying the filing fees, but the court found that his application did not provide enough information about his finances. He must either pay $405 or submit an amended application within 30 days. The court said no summons would issue yet and warned that the action will be dismissed if he does not comply.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued the order on June 27, 2024. She also noted that a nonlawyer cannot represent another entity in federal court and denied fee-waiver status for any appeal from this order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Age Reversal Unity v. New York University · No. 1:24-cv-04808
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
June 27, 2024

Background

Ali Afshar Shandiz filed this action on behalf of Age Reversal Unity against New York University and other defendants. The opinion states that Shandiz is proceeding without a lawyer. The court noted that federal law allows a person to represent himself but does not allow a nonlawyer to bring a lawsuit on behalf of another entity.

To proceed with a civil action, a plaintiff must either pay $405 in fees—a $350 filing fee plus a $55 administrative fee—or submit a signed application to proceed without prepaying fees. Shandiz submitted such an application, but stated that he was unemployed and had no income without answering questions about his last employment, prior wages, or how he paid his living expenses. He also entered zero for questions about cash, bank accounts, property, expenses, dependents, and debts.

Court’s Analysis

Because the application did not provide enough information for the court to determine whether Shandiz could afford the filing fees, the court did not authorize him to proceed without prepayment at this stage. The court directed him to provide complete answers and facts establishing that he cannot pay if he submits an amended application.

Order

Within 30 days of the order, Shandiz must either pay the $405 in fees or submit an amended application to proceed without prepaying fees, labeled with docket number 24-CV-4808 (LTS). No summons will issue at this time. If he complies, the case will be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures. If he does not comply within the allowed time, the action will be dismissed.

The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.