Thakrar v. StockX, LLC
- Dulce Foster
- 0:24-cv-01901
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Thakrar v. StockX, Judge Foster denied fee-waiver status without prejudice because Thakrar’s finances showed he could pay, while allowing a new application.
Poojan Thakrar’s request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee was denied without prejudice; the case was not dismissed by this order.
What happened
In Thakrar v. StockX, LLC, Poojan Thakrar asked to proceed without paying the court filing fee upfront. The court reviewed his financial information.
The court noted that Thakrar reported substantial past internship income, $38,200 in a liquid brokerage account, $65,100 in retirement accounts, and a forthcoming job paying almost $7,000 per month. It concluded that paying the filing fee would not cause undue hardship or deprive him of life’s necessities.
Judge Dulce J. Foster denied Thakrar’s application without prejudice. The court ordered him by June 14, 2024, either to pay the filing fee or submit a new application; if he did neither, the court would recommend dismissing the action for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Thakrar v. StockX, LLC · No. 0:24-cv-01901
- Dulce J. Foster
- May 24, 2024
Background
Poojan Thakrar applied to proceed in the District of Minnesota without prepaying filing fees or costs. This type of request is commonly called an application to proceed without paying fees in advance. The court considered whether paying the costs would cause undue hardship or deprive him of life’s necessities.
Court’s analysis
Based on the application, the court found that Thakrar could proceed without that hardship. The opinion states that he was a recent law-school graduate who received $14,750 in monthly pay from a summer internship in 2022 and $9,000 in monthly pay from a summer internship in 2023. He reported $38,200 in a brokerage account that appeared completely liquid and $65,100 in Roth and traditional individual retirement accounts. He also stated that he would begin a job in September paying almost $7,000 per month.
Ruling and next steps
The court denied the application without prejudice. By June 14, 2024, Thakrar was required either to pay the action’s filing fee or submit a new application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. The court stated that if he did neither, it would recommend dismissing the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The order did not itself dismiss the action.
Judge
The order was signed by Dulce J. Foster, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.