Global Media Network; William Scales v. Amazon Music
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-06153
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Global Media Network v. Amazon Music, Chief Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied plaintiffs permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Global Media Network and William Scales, whose action was dismissed and whose permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal was denied; Amazon Music, the defendant in the dismissed action.
What happened
Global Media Network and William Scales sued Amazon Music in the Southern District of New York. The judgment states that the action was dismissed for the reasons given in a September 3, 2025 order, but that order is not included here.
The court also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiffs permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered the civil judgment on September 3, 2025. The available opinion does not explain the basis for dismissal or whether the court reached the claims’ merits.
The detailed version
- Global Media Network; William Scales v. Amazon Music · No. 1:25-cv-06153
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 3, 2025
Disposition
The court dismissed the action. The judgment states that the reasons were provided in a September 3, 2025 order, but that order is not part of the provided text. The judgment therefore does not identify the claims, the parties’ arguments, or the legal basis for dismissal.
Appeal-related ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that any appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. It consequently denied in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal, meaning the plaintiffs could not proceed without paying the required fees based on that status.
What the provided text establishes
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the judgment on September 3, 2025. The available text does not state whether the dismissal was based on a procedural defect, the merits, or another ground, and it does not use the terms “with prejudice” or “without prejudice.”
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.