Waheed v. Ballon Stoll Bader and Nadler PC
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:25-cv-00358
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Waheed v. Ballon Stoll Bader and Nadler PC, Judge Wang ordered email procedures, required a response, and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Sehra Waheed, defendant Bildirici and his counsel, and all parties were affected by the filing and communication directives; Bildirici and his counsel also had to file the ordered letter.
What happened
In Waheed v. Ballon Stoll Bader and Nadler PC, self-represented plaintiff Sehra Waheed sent emails with attached proposed filings to the court, judges’ chambers, and represented defendants and their counsel. The court directed her not to email judges or represented parties directly.
The court also ordered defendant Bildirici and his counsel to file one letter addressing whether a later email came from Bildirici, whether it should be placed on the docket, and whether it should be treated as a response to Waheed’s proposed filings. All parties were told to stop copying the court on emails and proposed filings.
Judge Wang warned that future emails would be discarded without review and that continued violations could lead to sanctions. The order also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Waheed v. Ballon Stoll Bader and Nadler PC · No. 1:25-cv-00358
- Paul Engelmayer
- May 14, 2025
Background
Sehra Waheed, who was representing herself, sent two late-night emails to the email address designated for filings by self-represented parties. The emails included PDF attachments that appeared to be documents she wanted to file. They also copied the chambers of Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang and Judge Paul Engelmayer, as well as individual defendants and counsel for represented defendants.
The court stated that its practice rules do not allow self-represented parties to email chambers directly. It also stated that lawyers and self-represented litigants generally must communicate with represented parties through their attorneys unless the attorney consents or a law or court order permits direct communication.
The court then received another email appearing to be a reply to all from “Josef Bildirici.” The email’s recipient list had changed, and Waheed’s attachments appeared to remain attached. Because it was unclear whether the email actually came from Bildirici and what role the email should play in the case, the court directed Bildirici and his counsel to file one letter by 5:00 p.m. on May 16, 2025, addressing three questions: whether Bildirici sent the email, whether it should be entered on the docket, and whether it should be treated as a response to Waheed’s proposed filings.
Court’s directives
The court directed Waheed not to email or copy judges on future correspondence or filings. It directed her to communicate with represented parties through their counsel. It also directed all parties to stop copying the court on email correspondence and proposed filings, and stated that no courtesy copies should be sent unless the court specifically requested them.
The court warned that future emails would be discarded without review and that further failure to follow the directions could result in sanctions against the responsible party.
Disposition
The order did not decide the underlying claims. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Ona T. Wang signed the order on May 14, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.