Waheed v. Rentoulis

Background

Sehra Waheed, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint against Nickolaos Rentoulis; Androniki Rentoulis; Irini’s Originals, LLC; SM1 MMS, LLC, doing business as Manhattan Mini Storage, LLC; Burnam Smartco, LLC; Cris Burnam; Mike Burnam; Storage Treasures, LLC; OpenTech Alliance, Inc.; and Robert A. Chiti. She brought the action under federal-question and diversity jurisdiction. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Waheed alleged that the defendants illegally auctioned her personal property, which she said was stored in two Manhattan storage units. She valued the property at $439,854.97. She also filed requests involving a writ of replevin, permission to bring electronic devices into the courthouse, an exemption from Public Access to Court Electronic Records fees, and an emergency preliminary injunction.

Screening and representation of the LLC

Because Waheed was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That provision requires dismissal of an action or claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read filings by people without lawyers generously, those filings still must meet the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s requirement for a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

The court held that Waheed could not bring claims on behalf of Seren Fashion Art & Interiors, LLC. It explained that a member of a limited liability company cannot sue for injuries to the company and that a person who is not a lawyer cannot represent an entity in court. The court therefore dismissed Seren Fashion Art & Interiors, LLC as a plaintiff without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the entity from the matter.

Service of process

Because Waheed was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, she could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court found that she had not provided addresses where each defendant could be served. It therefore directed her to provide those addresses within 30 days. After receiving the information, the court would direct issuance of summonses and service by the Marshals Service. No summons would issue at that time. The court warned that it could dismiss the action without prejudice if Waheed failed to comply and could not show good cause.

Emergency preliminary injunction

The court denied without prejudice Waheed’s motion for an emergency preliminary injunction. It explained that this extraordinary remedy requires proof of likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions for litigation combined with a balance of hardships strongly favoring the applicant. At that early stage, the court found that Waheed had not shown either a likelihood of success or sufficiently serious questions together with the required balance of hardships.

Public Access to Court Electronic Records fees

The court denied without prejudice Waheed’s request for a broader exemption from Public Access to Court Electronic Records, or PACER, fees. It explained that PACER’s automatic exemptions already provide parties one free electronic copy of electronically filed documents, and that Waheed had agreed to electronic service. The court found that her IFP status and the facts she alleged did not show an unreasonable burden or a demonstrated need for additional free PACER access. The request could be renewed if a demonstrable need arose later.

Electronic devices

The court denied without prejudice Waheed’s request for permission to bring personal electronic devices into the courthouse. No in-court proceeding or trial was scheduled, so the court allowed renewal of the request at a later stage if an in-person proceeding required it.

Other directions and appeal certification

The court directed the Clerk to mail Waheed an information package and noted that she consented to electronic service. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith, so permission to proceed without prepaying fees was denied for an appeal.