Pandya v. Securities and Exchange Commission
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-11180
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pandya v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Judge Rochon ruled the appeal notice timely, denied an extension as moot, and denied permission to proceed without prepaying costs.
Ashish S. Pandya, whose request for more time to appeal was denied as moot and whose request to proceed without prepaying appeal costs was denied; the Securities and Exchange Commission is the opposing party named in the case.
What happened
In Pandya v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Ashish S. Pandya filed a notice of appeal from the Clerk’s Judgment dated January 13, 2025. He also asked for more time to appeal and for permission to proceed without prepaying appeal costs.
The court ruled that the February 12 notice of appeal was timely, so it denied the request for more time as moot. It also denied permission to proceed without prepaying costs because the application showed significant cash savings, household income well above the federal poverty line, and an ability to pay the required fees.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon entered the order on February 14, 2025, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the two pending motions.
The detailed version
- Pandya v. Securities and Exchange Commission · No. 1:23-cv-11180
- Rochon
- Feb. 14, 2025
Background
Ashish S. Pandya filed a notice of appeal on February 12, 2025, from the Clerk’s Judgment entered January 13, 2025. He also filed a motion for an extension of time to file the appeal notice and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the required costs because of financial inability.
Rulings
The court held that Pandya’s notice of appeal was timely because it was filed 30 days after entry of the Clerk’s Judgment. The court therefore denied the motion for an extension of time as moot.
The court denied Pandya’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. It found that his application showed significant cash savings and household income well above the federal poverty line. The court also noted that Pandya had fully paid the filing fees in the district court and had indicated that he intended to pay the docket fee for the appeal.
Disposition
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions pending at Docket Entries 32 and 33. This order addressed the timing of the appeal and the request to proceed without prepaying costs; the opinion does not analyze the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.