Schuster v. Charter Communications, Inc.
- 1:18-cv-01826
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Schuster v. Charter Communications, Inc., the court dismissed Schuster’s complaint and partly granted Charter’s sanctions motion.
Akobi Schuster is directly affected by the dismissal, the filing injunction, and the certification concerning an appeal. Charter Communications, Inc. is affected by the partial ruling on its sanctions motion.
What happened
In Schuster v. Charter Communications, Inc., the judgment states that Charter’s sanctions motion concerned Schuster’s federal litigation and that Schuster’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
The court also barred Schuster from filing related actions or requests for relief without first obtaining permission. The restriction covers matters involving the alleged cable-box incident, Charter’s response, Schuster’s workplace-safety claims, and Charter’s defense of earlier actions.
The court granted Charter’s sanctions motion in part and denied it in part, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, imposed the filing restriction, and closed the case. The court allowed an appeal but certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Schuster v. Charter Communications, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-01826
- Apr. 8, 2021
Background
The supplied text is a judgment in an action brought by Akobi Schuster against Charter Communications, Inc. It refers to Charter’s motion for sanctions and Schuster’s complaint. The judgment says the court’s reasons were stated in an Opinion and Order dated April 8, 2021, but that separate opinion is not included here.
Rulings
The court granted in part and denied in part Charter’s motion for sanctions. It also dismissed Schuster’s complaint with prejudice, meaning the judgment states that the complaint cannot be refiled.
The judgment imposed a filing injunction beginning on April 8, 2021. It bars Schuster from filing in any tribunal an action, motion, petition, complaint, or request for relief related to or arising from the alleged cable-box incident, Charter’s alleged response to that incident, Schuster’s workplace-safety claims, or Charter’s conduct in defending earlier actions against any person or entity encountered by Schuster during the federal litigation. Before filing covered materials, Schuster must obtain permission from the court and submit the request and proposed filing to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit under the caption “Request for Permission to File under Filing Injunction.”
The judgment states that an unauthorized filing would be denied for failure to comply with the order and that Schuster could face sanctions, including monetary penalties or contempt. It also states that the injunction does not prevent Schuster from appealing this Opinion and Order. However, the court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any such appeal would not be taken in good faith. The case was closed.
Disposition
The court’s judgment therefore contains four stated outcomes: Charter’s sanctions motion was granted in part and denied in part; Schuster’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice; the filing injunction was imposed; and the case was closed. The text does not identify the judge who issued the underlying Opinion and Order; the document is entered by the Clerk of Court through a deputy clerk.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.