Parolise v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
- Gregory Woods
- 1:24-cv-01382
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Parolise v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Judge Woods set briefing deadlines on objections and denied appeal-related IFP status.
Marilena C. Parolise and Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC; the appeal-related in forma pauperis ruling directly affects any party seeking to appeal this order.
What happened
In Parolise v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker had recommended granting Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC’s motion to dismiss the amended petition and denying Marilena C. Parolise’s emergency request to pause arbitration. Parolise filed objections to that recommendation on September 9, 2024.
Judge Gregory H. Woods’s order set September 23, 2024, as the deadline for Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC to respond to the objections. The court said no reply would be permitted and that the parties’ written arguments would be complete after that response was filed or the deadline passed.
Judge Woods did not rule in this order on the recommendation to dismiss the amended petition or the request to pause arbitration. He certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal.
The detailed version
- Parolise v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-01382
- Gregory Woods
- Sept. 9, 2024
Background
On August 26, 2024, Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker issued a report and recommendation concerning Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC’s motion to dismiss the amended petition and Marilena C. Parolise’s emergency motion to stay, or pause, arbitration. The recommendation was to grant the motion to dismiss and deny the emergency motion to stay arbitration. Parolise filed objections on September 9, 2024.
Order
The court set September 23, 2024, as the deadline for Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC to oppose Parolise’s objections. Under Judge Woods’s individual practice rules, no reply was permitted. The court stated that the parties’ briefing would be considered complete when the opposition was filed or when the deadline passed, if no opposition was filed.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied in forma pauperis status—that is, permission to proceed without paying ordinary filing fees—for purposes of an appeal.
Disposition and Scope
This order did not state that the court adopted or rejected the magistrate judge’s recommendations on dismissal or arbitration. Its stated actions were to set the briefing schedule and deny appeal-related in forma pauperis status.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.