Friedeberg v. Share Info Consultant Service LLC
- Louis Stanton
- 1:25-cv-03999
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Friedeberg v. Share Info Consultant Service LLC was dismissed as frivolous; Judge Stanton’s judgment also denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
Friedeberg’s action against US Share Info Consultant Service LLC was dismissed. Friedeberg was denied fee-waiver status for an appeal and was warned that continued abuse of the fee-waiver privilege could lead to a requirement of prior permission to use it in this court.
What happened
Friedeberg v. Share Info Consultant Service LLC involved an action against US Share Info Consultant Service LLC. The judgment says the court dismissed the action as frivolous under a federal statute, relying on an order dated June 25, 2025. The judgment does not describe the claims or explain why the court found them frivolous.
The court warned that if Friedeberg continues abusing the privilege of proceeding without paying filing fees, it may require her to explain why she should not be barred from using that privilege in this court without prior permission. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.
Judge Louis Stanton is identified as the judge for Friedeberg v. Share Info Consultant Service LLC. The June 27, 2025 judgment entered judgment dismissing the action.
The detailed version
- Friedeberg v. Share Info Consultant Service LLC · No. 1:25-cv-03999
- Louis Stanton
- June 27, 2025
Background
The judgment concerns an action brought by Friedeberg against US Share Info Consultant Service LLC. It refers to the court’s June 25, 2025 order but does not include that order’s reasoning or describe the underlying claims.
Ruling
The court stated that it had dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A frivolous action is one that the statute permits the court to dismiss because it lacks a legally or factually supportable basis, although this judgment does not explain the court’s specific reasoning.
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. It therefore denied Friedeberg permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The judgment further warned that continued abuse of the privilege of proceeding without paying filing fees could lead the court to require Friedeberg to show why she should not be barred from doing so in this court without prior permission.
Disposition and classification
The judgment states: “Judgment is entered dismissing this action.” This is a procedural order because the action was dismissed as frivolous during statutory screening, rather than after the court decided the underlying legal dispute on its merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.