Waheed v. New York Loan Company
- Lewis Liman
- 1:25-cv-04787
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Sehra Waheed v. New York Loan Company: Judge Liman declined to reconsider counsel appointment and extended Waheed’s deadline to oppose defendants’ dismissal motion.
Sehra Waheed, who was representing herself, received an extended deadline to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court did not appoint counsel or decide the motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Sehra Waheed v. New York Loan Company, the court addressed Waheed’s request to revisit an earlier decision denying her request for a lawyer. The earlier denial had been issued without prejudice, meaning the request could be renewed later.
Waheed argued that the court should reconsider because she is disabled and lacks stable housing. The court found that she had not identified new information or law requiring reconsideration. The court also noted that it had not yet decided defendants’ motion to dismiss or determined whether her claims could proceed.
Judge Lewis J. Liman did not change the earlier decision and directed the clerk to close the reconsideration motion. Because Waheed was representing herself, the court gave her until August 5, 2026, to oppose the motion to dismiss; defendants would then have the usual time to reply.
The detailed version
- Waheed v. New York Loan Company · No. 1:25-cv-04787
- Lewis Liman
- July 15, 2026
Background
On May 15, 2026, the court denied without prejudice Sehra Waheed’s request for appointment of counsel. On June 5, 2026, Waheed moved for reconsideration, asking the court to revisit that decision.
Reconsideration standard
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. It is not a way to relitigate old issues, present new theories, or obtain a second opportunity to argue the matter.
Court’s analysis
The court had previously denied counsel because, at that early stage, it could not find that Waheed’s claims were likely to have substance, would require substantial factual investigation, involved complex legal issues, or presented another special reason making appointed counsel more likely to produce a just result. The court had made that decision without prejudging defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The court concluded that Waheed’s reconsideration motion identified no new information or law requiring the earlier decision to be revisited. The court also stated that it had not ruled on defendants’ motion to dismiss and had made no further finding about whether Waheed’s allegations were legally viable. The court said that Waheed’s disability and lack of stable housing could be considered if she renewed her request for counsel after the motion to dismiss was decided.
Other procedural ruling
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Waheed’s Second Amended Verified Complaint on June 10, 2026. The court noted that Waheed had not filed an opposition to that motion. Although Waheed stated that earlier filings addressed the claims’ viability, the court explained that those filings predated defendants’ motion and did not address its arguments.
Because Waheed was proceeding without a lawyer, the court gave her until August 5, 2026, to file an opposition. Defendants would have the standard time allowed by the rules to reply. The clerk was directed to close the reconsideration motion, docket number 80. The opinion did not decide defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.