Mahadeo v. Razorfish Health
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-09394
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mahadeo v. Razorfish Health, Judge Swain dismissed the duplicate complaint without prejudice and denied fee-free appeal status.
Rona Mahadeo's duplicate lawsuit against Publicis Health, Razorfish Health, and Alison Newell was dismissed; her separate pending case under docket number 24-CV-9582 (LTS) was not dismissed by this order.
What happened
In Mahadeo v. Razorfish Health, Rona Mahadeo, representing herself, alleged that her employer unlawfully discriminated against her. The complaint named Publicis Health, Razorfish Health, and Alison Newell.
The court found that Mahadeo had already filed an identical complaint against the same defendants, which remained pending under docket number 24-CV-9582. It dismissed this duplicate complaint without prejudice to that pending case.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk to enter judgment and ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, so Mahadeo could not appeal without paying the required fees.
The detailed version
- Mahadeo v. Razorfish Health · No. 1:24-cv-09394
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 7, 2025
Background
Rona Mahadeo, who was representing herself, sued Publicis Health, Razorfish Health, and Alison Newell. She alleged that her employer unlawfully discriminated against her.
Reason for dismissal
The court stated that Mahadeo had submitted an identical complaint against the same defendants. The earlier case was pending under docket number 24-CV-9582 (LTS). Because the two cases raised the same claims, the court concluded that litigating this duplicate lawsuit would serve no useful purpose.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint as duplicative, without prejudice to Mahadeo's pending case under docket number 24-CV-9582 (LTS). The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment in this action.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. As a result, fee-free status for an appeal was denied. The opinion notes that, in the pending case, the court had directed Mahadeo either to pay the required $405 filing fees or submit an application to proceed without paying those fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.