Costello v. Paramount Global, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-01553
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Costello v. Paramount Global, Judge Schofield adopted the recommendation, closed the case, and denied fee-waiver status for any appeal.
Sue Costello and Paramount Global, Inc. are affected because the case was closed. Sue Costello is also affected by the denial of permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
What happened
In Costello v. Paramount Global, Inc., the judgment states that the court adopted in full a recommendation from an earlier report. The judgment does not describe the underlying claims or the recommendation’s reasoning.
The case was closed. The court also denied Sue Costello permission to appeal without paying the filing fee, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. The judgment does not state the underlying disposition beyond adopting the recommendation.
Judge Lorna Schofield is identified in the supplied case information. The judgment was dated March 13, 2025, and was entered by the court clerk.
The detailed version
- Costello v. Paramount Global, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-01553
- Lorna Schofield
- Mar. 13, 2025
What the Judgment Says
The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s Opinion and Order dated March 12, 2025, the court adopted the report’s recommendation in full. The provided judgment does not include the report, the March 12 opinion, the underlying claims, or the recommendation’s reasoning.
Disposition
The court ordered that the case be closed. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. As a result, it denied in forma pauperis status—that is, permission to appeal without paying the filing fee—for purposes of an appeal. The judgment does not state any other disposition of the underlying claims.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the provided judgment closes the case and rules on appeal-related filing-fee status without explaining or deciding the underlying legal issues.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.