Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 24, 2020

No v. Facebook

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:19-cv-11406
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In No v. Facebook, Judge McMahon dismissed the complaint without prejudice because the plaintiff neither submitted a new fee-waiver application nor paid filing fees.

Who this affects

Jeong-Suk No’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and fee-waiver status was denied for any appeal. The order did not resolve the claims against Facebook, Gmail, Yahoo Email, Google, Skype, or Apple.

What happened

In No v. Facebook, Jeong-Suk No sued Facebook, Gmail, Yahoo Email, Google, Skype, and Apple in the Southern District of New York.

The court had ordered No to submit an amended application to waive the filing fees or pay the required $400. No did neither within the deadline.

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint without prejudice and denied fee-waiver status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
No v. Facebook · No. 1:19-cv-11406
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Jan. 24, 2020

Background

On December 16, 2019, the court directed Jeong-Suk No to submit an amended application to proceed without paying filing fees or to pay the $400 required to file a civil action. The order warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint.

Court’s ruling

No did not submit an amended fee-waiver application or pay the filing fees. Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal did not bar refiling.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the substance of No’s claims against the defendants.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.