Paray v. VHF Inc.
- Ona Wang
- 1:24-cv-04526
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Paray v. VHF Inc.: Judge Wang granted in part and denied in part defendants’ request to strike abusive letters, leaving other letters on the docket.
Pro se plaintiff Vena Paray and the defendants, including Rohde and Soliman. Five of Paray’s letters were removed from the docket, while the remaining letters covered by the request stayed on the docket.
What happened
In Paray v. VHF Inc., defendants asked the court to remove several letters that pro se plaintiff Vena Paray had filed. Some letters made derogatory statements about defendants Rohde and Soliman concerning race or religion and accused defendants of belonging to terrorist organizations.
Other letters did not contain those accusations but included material unrelated to the case or requests for relief the court could not provide. After defendants made their request, Paray filed two more letters containing similar allegations.
Judge Ona T. Wang granted in part and denied in part the request to strike. The court ordered ECF Nos. 46, 47, 50, 53, and 54 removed from the docket, but declined to strike the remaining letters. The court warned that similar future letters could be removed and could lead to other sanctions.
The detailed version
- Paray v. VHF Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-04526
- Ona Wang
- July 23, 2025
Background
Defendants asked the Court to strike, meaning remove from the docket, letters filed by pro se Plaintiff Vena Paray. The request concerned ECF Nos. 29, 30, and 45–51. The Court stated that ECF Nos. 46, 47, and 50 contained derogatory statements about Defendants Rohde and Soliman concerning race and/or religion, along with accusations that Defendants belonged to terrorist organizations. Paray filed two additional letters, ECF Nos. 53 and 54, containing the same type of abusive allegations.
The remaining letters—ECF Nos. 29, 30, 45, 48, 49, and 51—did not contain those derogatory statements. The Court stated that they instead included material immaterial to the case and/or requests for relief that the Court could not grant.
Ruling
Judge Wang held that whether to strike a filing is within the trial court’s discretion and that a court may remove abusive or otherwise improper materials to manage its docket. Defendants’ request to strike Plaintiff’s letters was GRANTED in part, DENIED in part. The Court ordered the Clerk to strike ECF Nos. 46, 47, 50, 53, and 54 from the docket and declined to strike the remaining letters.
The Court warned that future letters containing similar information might be stricken and that the Court might impose other sanctions, including requiring Paray to obtain permission before filing anything on the docket. The order also stated that Paray could contact the Pro Se Intake Unit for assistance.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.