Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 23, 2025

Malhotra v. MILA GROUP, LLC

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-05065
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Malhotra v. MILA GROUP, LLC, Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.

Who this affects

Gaurav Malhotra’s action against MILA GROUP, LLC and John Doe 15 was dismissed. Malhotra was denied permission to appeal without paying court fees under the court’s certification.

What happened

Malhotra v. MILA GROUP, LLC involved Gaurav Malhotra’s action against MILA GROUP, LLC and John Doe 15. The judgment states that the action was dismissed for the reasons given in a separate July 23, 2025 order.

The supplied judgment does not include that separate order, so it does not explain why the action was dismissed or whether the court addressed the underlying claims. It also does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered the civil judgment on July 23, 2025. She certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Malhotra permission to appeal without paying court fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
Malhotra v. MILA GROUP, LLC · No. 1:25-cv-05065
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
July 23, 2025

Disposition

The court dismissed the action. The judgment gives no additional explanation and refers to a separate order dated July 23, 2025, which is not included in the supplied opinion text.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied in forma pauperis status—that is, permission to appeal without paying court fees—for purposes of an appeal.

Limits of the Supplied Text

The judgment does not identify the legal basis for dismissal, describe the claims, or state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. Because the referenced July 23 order is not provided, the supplied text does not show whether the court reached the merits of the claims.

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.