Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 26, 2025

Friedeberg v. Friedeberg

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-08874
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Friedeberg v. Friedeberg, Judge Swain denied two motions because the case had already been transferred to another court.

Who this affects

Donna L. Friedeberg’s requests to proceed without paying court fees and to amend her complaint were denied by the Southern District of New York because the case had already been transferred to the District of Connecticut.

What happened

In Donna L. Friedeberg v. Michelle Friedeberg, the court had transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut under a federal venue statute. That court confirmed receiving the case on December 13, 2024.

Donna L. Friedeberg later applied to proceed without paying court fees and asked to amend her complaint. Because both filings came after the transfer took effect, the Southern District of New York concluded that it no longer had authority to consider them.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied both the fee-waiver application and the motion to amend. The matter remains closed in the Southern District of New York, and the court also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Friedeberg v. Friedeberg · No. 1:24-cv-08874
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Feb. 26, 2025

Background

Donna L. Friedeberg brought this action without a lawyer. On November 22, 2024, the court ordered the case transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1406. The transfer was entered on the docket on November 26, 2024, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut acknowledged receipt of the case on December 13, 2024.

On December 23, 2024, Friedeberg filed an application to proceed without paying court fees. On December 30, 2024, she filed a motion to amend her complaint. The opinion states that both submissions were entered on this court’s docket on February 20, 2025. The fee application also included an application for another action, and the court directed the Clerk to file a copy in that other action.

Jurisdiction over the Motions

The court explained that transferring an action generally removes the transferring court’s authority over it. The transferring court retains authority only if a party takes steps to pause or challenge the transfer before the receiving court’s clerk receives the case papers. Here, the receiving court acknowledged the case before Friedeberg filed either motion.

Because the transfer had already taken effect, the Southern District of New York concluded that it lacked jurisdiction—the legal authority to decide the motions. The court therefore denied both Friedeberg’s application to proceed without paying court fees and her motion to amend the complaint.

Ruling

The court denied the application to proceed without paying court fees (ECF 5) and denied the motion to amend the complaint (ECF 6). The matter remains closed in this court. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.