Veras v. Sirawan Transportation, Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:25-cv-05978
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Veras v. Sirawan Transportation, Inc.: Judge Carter dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The plaintiff and Graphite Solutions Inc.; the judgment does not identify the plaintiff in its caption. The ruling also affects any attempted appeal by denying permission to proceed without paying the appeal costs.
What happened
In Veras v. Sirawan Transportation, Inc., the judgment states that the case was dismissed because the court lacked authority to hear it. The judgment’s caption lists Graphite Solutions Inc. as the defendant but does not identify the plaintiff.
The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning the judgment did not state that refiling was barred. The court also said that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing costs.
Judge Carter is identified in the supplied case information, but the judgment itself refers to the court’s earlier order and is signed by a clerk. The judgment does not provide the earlier order’s reasoning beyond the jurisdictional dismissal.
The detailed version
- Veras v. Sirawan Transportation, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-05978
- Andrew Carter
- Oct. 8, 2025
Background
The judgment states that the case was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court determined that it did not have legal authority to hear the case. It gives no further explanation of the jurisdictional issue and incorporates the reasons stated in the court’s October 7, 2025 order.
The judgment’s caption identifies Graphite Solutions Inc. as the defendant but leaves the plaintiff’s name blank. The supplied case metadata identifies the case as Veras v. Sirawan Transportation, Inc., which does not match the parties shown in the judgment caption.
Ruling
The case was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The judgment also certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denies permission to appeal without paying the required costs.
Effect
The opinion is a procedural dismissal and does not decide the underlying legal dispute. Because the judgment says the dismissal was without prejudice, it does not state that refiling is barred.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.