Celsius Network LLC v. Meghji
- Lewis Liman
- 1:24-cv-04057
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Voelker v. Meghiji: Judge Liman reopened the appeal, denied Voelker’s fee-waiver request without prejudice, and required payment or a proper application by March 21, 2025.
Jason Voelker’s bankruptcy appeal was reopened, but he still had to pay the filing fee or submit a properly sworn application to proceed without paying it by March 21, 2025. The order did not decide the underlying appeal.
What happened
In Jason Voelker v. Mohsin Y. Meghiji, Jason Voelker asked the court to undo its earlier dismissal of his bankruptcy appeal for failure to pay the filing fee. He also asked to proceed without paying the fee. Voelker was representing himself.
The court concluded that Voelker should have an opportunity to correct the fee problem after receiving clear notice of the requirement and its consequences. The court therefore reopened the appeal but found that his fee-waiver request was not properly sworn or declared under penalty of perjury.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the motion in part and denied it in part. He granted the request to vacate the earlier dismissal, denied the fee-waiver request without prejudice, and required Voelker by March 21, 2025, to pay the fee, submit a proper fee-waiver application, or request an extension for good cause.
The detailed version
- Celsius Network LLC v. Meghji · No. 1:24-cv-04057
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 7, 2025
Background
Jason Voelker appealed a May 8, 2024, order of the Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court that denied his request for permission to file an adversary proceeding. Voelker filed the appeal in this court and later filed an opening brief. The court dismissed the appeal on September 25, 2024, because he had not paid the filing fee.
Voelker, who was representing himself, moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (6) to vacate—that is, undo—the dismissal. He also asked to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee. The appellees did not oppose the motion.
Court’s Analysis
The court recognized that Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8003 allows dismissal when an appellant fails to pay the required filing fee, but it also requires the court to consider the circumstances before dismissing an appeal. Relevant considerations include whether the appellant received notice, whether a lesser sanction would be appropriate, whether the conduct was willful or in bad faith, whether another party was prejudiced, and whether the appellant should have an opportunity to correct the problem.
The court determined that these considerations favored relief from the dismissal. Voelker stated that he did not know a filing fee was required. Because he was representing himself, the court concluded that he should have at least one opportunity to correct the problem after being fully informed of the deficiency and its possible consequences.
The court separately found that Voelker’s application to proceed without paying the fee was inadequate. Although his motion included facts concerning his financial status, those facts were not declared or sworn to under penalty of perjury. The court therefore could not consider them as a proper application.
Ruling
Judge Lewis J. Liman stated that the motion was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The court GRANTED the motion to vacate the earlier dismissal and reopened Voelker’s appeal. It DENIED the motion to proceed without paying the filing fee, without prejudice to a renewed application in proper form.
By March 21, 2025, Voelker was required to pay the filing fee or submit a proper application to proceed without paying it. If he did either, the court would set a briefing schedule. If he did neither—and did not submit a letter showing good cause for an extension—the court stated that it would dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute.
The order does not decide the merits of Voelker’s bankruptcy appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.