Miah v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC

Background

Habib Miah, proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple pre-answer motions. They sought reconsideration of earlier orders, permission to participate remotely in proceedings, recusal or reassignment of the magistrate judge, a case-management conference, authorization for subpoenas and other early discovery, coordination with a case previously filed in the District of Massachusetts, intervention or friend-of-court participation by the United States or New York Attorney General, mediation, and directions concerning Defendants’ appearance.

Defendants Eaton Vance Management International LTD and Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC appeared on May 2, 2025. They filed a letter motion seeking additional time to respond to Miah’s pre-answer motions or, alternatively, an order denying those motions without requiring responses.

Court’s reasoning

The court denied reconsideration because Miah had not identified a change in controlling law, new evidence, legal error, or manifest injustice. It stated that requests for remote participation could be made when an in-person conference was scheduled, but that further requests made when no such conference was scheduled would be denied. The court also denied recusal because Miah’s argument consisted of disagreement with and criticism of the court’s rulings.

The court denied as moot Miah’s request to compel Defendants to appear because they had already filed a notice of appearance. It denied early discovery, explaining that expedited discovery is subject to the court’s discretion and that Miah could send evidence-preservation notices to Defendants and relevant third parties. The court said it would decide later when a case-management conference made sense.

The court denied as moot Miah’s requests for coordination involving the District of Massachusetts because the related case had been transferred to the Southern District of New York. It denied the request for intervention or friend-of-court briefs because Miah gave no indication that the government offices wanted to participate and the dispute involved employment in the United Kingdom. It denied the mediation request without prejudice to renewal if the parties agreed that court-connected mediation was appropriate.

Disposition

The court denied each of Miah’s motions at ECF Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25. The mediation request was specifically denied without prejudice to renewal. Defendants’ letter motion at ECF No. 29 was granted in part and denied in part. The order did not decide Defendants’ separately filed motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the listed motions and mail the order to Miah.