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 stayed all open motions pending a dismissal motion and denied fee-free appeal status.
The stay affects Waheed and all defendants by pausing the action’s open motions while the defendants’ motion to dismiss is pending. The denial of fee-free appeal status affects Waheed if she seeks to appeal this order.
What happened
Sehra Waheed, representing herself, sued Ballon Stoll Bader and Nadler PC and the other named defendants over claims including legal malpractice, interference with a litigation-funding contract, constitutional violations, and discrimination-related claims. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing improper service and lack of personal and subject-matter jurisdiction.
Because the dismissal motion raised subject-matter jurisdiction, the court stayed all open motions until that motion is resolved. The defendants were directed to file a reply by July 18, 2025, and the court said neither side should make additional filings or communications unless directed.
Judge Ona T. Wang also denied fee-free status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide the dismissal motion or the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Waheed v. Ballon Stoll Bader and Nadler PC · No. 1:25-cv-00358
- Paul Engelmayer
- July 11, 2025
Background
Sehra Waheed, who was representing herself, filed this action against Ballon Stoll Bader and Nadler PC, Vano Haroutunian, Bil-Iman Asset Management LLC, Marshall Bellovin, David Bildirici, and Yucuf or Josef Bildirici. Her second amended complaint asserted, among other claims, legal malpractice, interference with a litigation-funding contract, constitutional-rights violations, and claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint based on improper service and lack of personal jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction. Waheed filed an opposition, but the defendants had not yet filed a reply. Judge Paul Engelmayer referred the case to Judge Ona T. Wang for general pretrial management and dispositive motions.
Order
The court stated that it would resolve the subject-matter-jurisdiction issue before addressing any other motions or requests. It therefore stayed all open motions pending resolution of the defendants’ motion to dismiss at ECF 44. The defendants were directed to file their reply brief by July 18, 2025. The court also stated that no additional filings or communications were needed from either side unless the court expressly directed them.
The order did not rule on the motion to dismiss, determine whether the court had jurisdiction, or decide the merits of Waheed’s claims. It also addressed Waheed’s request for pro bono counsel by referring her to the City Bar Justice Center’s Pro Se Law Clinic, while explaining that the clinic is a private organization and is not part of the court.
Disposition
The court stayed all open motions pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order was signed by Ona T. Wang, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.