Miah v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:25-cv-01208
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Miah v. Morgan Stanley, Judge Swain denied an alternative-payment request, granted a 30-day extension, and required the filing fee.
Habib Miah, who must submit the $405 filing fee within 30 days and may not proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order.
What happened
In Miah v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC, the plaintiff asked to pay the $405 filing fee by an alternative method after wire-transfer attempts failed.
The plaintiff also asked for more time to submit the fee. The court denied the alternative-payment request but allowed payment by cash, bank check, money order, certified check, or, if available in person at the courthouse, a major credit card.
The court granted the request for more time and required payment within 30 days of the order. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Miah v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC · No. 1:25-cv-01208
- Paul Engelmayer
- Mar. 12, 2025
Background
The court had previously directed the plaintiff to pay $405 in fees to initiate the action or ask that the fees be waived. The plaintiff then filed a motion for an alternative payment method, stating that attempts to pay by wire transfer had been unsuccessful. The plaintiff also moved for additional time to submit the filing fee.
Rulings
The court denied the motion for an alternative payment method. It directed the plaintiff to submit payment by cash, bank check, money order, or certified check. If payment could be made in person at the courthouse, the plaintiff could instead use a major credit card.
The court granted the motion for additional time and required the plaintiff to submit the payment within 30 days of the order. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate both motions.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. As a result, the court denied the plaintiff permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. This order addressed payment and appeal-fee issues; it did not state that the underlying action was dismissed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.