Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 2, 2025

Sreedhar v. Duvvuri

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-04269
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Sreedhar v. Duvvuri, Judge Swain granted Sreedhar’s withdrawal motion and dismissed the action without prejudice.

Who this affects

Srikant Sreedhar’s action against Ravi Duvvuri was dismissed without prejudice. Any other pending motion or request was also denied without prejudice, and permission to appeal without paying filing fees was denied.

What happened

In Sreedhar v. Duvvuri, Srikant Sreedhar asked to withdraw the action on May 30, 2025.

The court granted that request and dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar a later filing. The court also denied any other pending motion or request without prejudice.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
Sreedhar v. Duvvuri · No. 1:25-cv-04269
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
June 2, 2025

Background

On May 30, 2025, Plaintiff Srikant Sreedhar filed a motion to withdraw the action against Defendant Ravi Duvvuri.

Rulings

The court granted Sreedhar’s motion. It dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar a later filing based on the same matter. The court also denied without prejudice any other pending motion or request in the action.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.

Basis and Classification

The order resolved the case based on the plaintiff’s request to withdraw it and did not address the underlying claims. The opinion is therefore classified as a procedural order.

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.