Koshy v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:17-cv-07781
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Koshy v. Regeneron, Judge Briccetti granted Regeneron’s summary-judgment motion, denied appeal fee-waiver status, and closed the case.
Stanley Koshy and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; the judgment grants Regeneron’s summary-judgment motion and closes the case.
What happened
In Koshy v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the court entered judgment for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The judgment refers to the reasons stated in the court’s Opinion and Order dated December 18, 2019.
The court granted Regeneron’s motion for summary judgment. It also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Stanley Koshy permission to appeal without paying the required fees.
Judge Vincent Briccetti was the judge identified for the case. The court ordered that the case be closed.
The detailed version
- Koshy v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · No. 7:17-cv-07781
- Vincent Briccetti
- Dec. 18, 2019
Background
The available text is a judgment in an action brought by Stanley Koshy against Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The judgment states that the court’s reasons were provided in an Opinion and Order dated December 18, 2019, but that Opinion and Order is not included in the provided text.
Ruling
The court granted Regeneron’s motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision resolving a case without a trial when the court determines that the governing legal standard is satisfied based on the record before it. The provided judgment does not state the underlying claims or explain the court’s reasoning.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the required filing fees. The judgment states that the case was closed.
Effect
The judgment entered judgment for Regeneron on the basis stated in the court’s Opinion and Order and closed the case. The available text does not provide further details about the claims, evidence, or legal analysis.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.