Miah v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC

Background

Habib Miah filed two motions on April 23, 2025. The first asked the court to reconsider its April 23 order denying his blanket request to appear remotely at all hearings, conferences, and other proceedings. The second asked the court to schedule a case-management conference, permit him to serve subpoenas, and delay decisions on any dispositive motions, meaning motions that could resolve claims or the case.

The order states that Miah filed the case without a lawyer. The complaint was initially unsigned and was later refiled with a signature. Defendants Eaton Vance Management International LTD and Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC had waived service, but they had not yet filed an appearance. Their deadline to answer or file a motion under Rule 12 was May 2, 2025.

Court’s Analysis

For reconsideration—a request asking the court to revisit an earlier order—the court applied a standard requiring an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. The court found that Miah had identified none of those grounds. No in-person proceeding or trial was then scheduled. If an in-person conference were scheduled later, Miah could ask for permission to attend remotely for that particular proceeding. The court also noted that most of the magistrate judge’s pretrial conferences are held by telephone, making the request moot as to conferences that would already be remote.

The court found Miah’s second motion premature. Because the defendants’ time to appear and respond had not expired, the court would not schedule a case-management conference yet. The court said that, after the defendants appeared, it would decide whether and when to schedule such a conference. It further stated that discovery, including third-party subpoenas, would be addressed in the conference schedule. Miah’s request to delay decisions on dispositive motions was moot because no such motions were pending.

Disposition

Judge Henry J. Ricardo denied the motion for reconsideration without prejudice to renewal upon the scheduling of an in-person conference. He denied as premature Miah’s motion for a case-management conference, leave to serve subpoenas, and a stay of decisions on dispositive motions. The clerk was directed to terminate both motions as denied and mail the order to Miah.