Brown v. RXR Soyo Exalta LLC
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-03425
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brown v. RXR Soyo Exalta LLC, Judge Swain denied Brown’s request to appeal without paying fees and found an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith.
Marla Brown’s request to appeal without paying court fees was denied; the order also states that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
What happened
In Brown v. RXR Soyo Exalta LLC, Marla Brown brought the action without a lawyer. The court had dismissed the action on June 12, 2025, and entered judgment on June 16, 2025. Brown filed an appeal that same day.
Brown later asked to proceed with the appeal without paying court fees. The court denied that request and stated that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued the order. The order concerns only Brown’s request to proceed without paying fees for the appeal; it does not reconsider the earlier dismissal of the action.
The detailed version
- Brown v. RXR Soyo Exalta LLC · No. 1:25-cv-03425
- Laura Swain
- July 15, 2025
Background
Marla Brown brought the action without a lawyer against RXR Soyo Exalta LLC, Jennifer Alexander, Alison Lenihan, Esq., and the State of New York. The court states that it dismissed the action by an order dated June 12, 2025, and entered judgment on June 16, 2025. The opinion does not describe the reasons for that dismissal.
Brown filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on June 16, 2025. On June 27, 2025, she filed an application to proceed without paying court fees for the appeal, commonly called an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or IFP.
Ruling
The court denied Brown’s request to proceed IFP on appeal. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. The court explained that an appeal is taken in good faith when the appellant seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue. This order addresses the IFP request and does not decide the merits of the earlier dismissal.
Disposition
The request to proceed IFP for purposes of the appeal was denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.