Tatas v. Ali Baba's Terrace, Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-10595
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Tatas v. Ali Baba’s Terrace, Judge Ramos directed defendants to respond to Tatas’s request to pause cost collection during his appeal, without deciding the request.
Mehmet Emin Tatas and the four defendants—Ali Baba’s Terrace, Inc., Ali Riza Dogan, Senol Bakir, and Tolgahan Subakan—are affected by the pending request to pause collection of costs during Tatas’s appeal. The order specifically requires the defendants to respond.
What happened
In Tatas v. Ali Baba’s Terrace, Inc., Mehmet Emin Tatas asked the court to stop the defendants from collecting costs while his appeal was pending. He referred to an unaccepted offer of judgment and a later award of costs against him.
Tatas argued that collecting the costs before the appeal ended would financially harm him and interfere with his appeal. He also argued that the appeal was likely to succeed and that the defendants would not be harmed by waiting.
Judge Edgardo Ramos did not decide whether to pause collection. On March 18, 2025, he directed the defendants to respond by March 25, 2025.
The detailed version
- Tatas v. Ali Baba's Terrace, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10595
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 18, 2025
What was before the court
Mehmet Emin Tatas, representing himself, filed a memorandum supporting a request to stay execution of the judgment pending his appeal. A stay would temporarily prevent enforcement of the judgment. Tatas specifically asked the court to prevent Ali Baba’s Terrace, Inc., Ali Riza Dogan, Senol Bakir, and Tolgahan Subakan from collecting costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 while the appeal was pending.
The parties’ positions
Tatas stated that the defendants had made him an offer of judgment for $77,500, which he did not accept, and that he proceeded to trial. He stated that judgment was later entered against him, that he appealed, and that the defendants sought costs under Rule 68. According to the filing, the defendants were awarded $18,884.95 in costs, while Tatas was awarded $3,281.35 in costs.
Tatas argued that collecting costs before the appeal was resolved would cause significant financial hardship and could impair his ability to pursue the appeal. He argued that the factors governing a stay—likelihood of success, irreparable harm, hardship to other parties, and the public interest—favored his request. The filing also included arguments about the evidence and verdict in the underlying discrimination case. Those arguments were presented by Tatas; this order did not decide them.
Court’s action
Judge Edgardo Ramos did not grant or deny the requested stay in the order shown. Instead, the court directed the defendants to respond by March 25, 2025, and stated, “SO ORDERED.” The opinion text therefore reflects a scheduling or response directive, not a ruling on whether cost collection would be stayed.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.