Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 20, 2025

Global Media Network v. Tidal

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-00396
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Global Media Network v. Tidal, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice after Global Media Network neither paid filing fees nor submitted an IFP application.

Who this affects

Global Media Network's complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and its request to appeal without paying fees was denied. Tidal was the named defendant.

What happened

In Global Media Network v. Tidal, the court ordered Global Media Network to submit a completed request to proceed without paying filing fees or pay the $405 filing fee within 30 days. The court warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal.

Global Media Network did neither. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The order did not address the underlying claims against Tidal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Global Media Network v. Tidal · No. 1:25-cv-00396
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Mar. 20, 2025

Background

On February 3, 2025, the court directed Global Media Network to submit, within 30 days, either a completed application to proceed without paying filing fees or the $405 required to file a civil action. The court warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint.

Global Media Network did not submit the application or pay the filing fee.

Ruling

The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. This means the dismissal did not bar refiling. The order was based on the failure to submit the required application or pay the filing fee; it did not decide the underlying claims against Tidal.

The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.