Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 1, 2021

Sabeniano v. Citibank, N.A. New York

Judge
Alison Nathan
Docket
1:16-cv-01723-AJN
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Sabeniano v. Citibank: Judge Nathan denied permission to seek enforcement of a Philippines judgment because an existing filing injunction required permission.

Who this affects

Plaintiff Modesta R. Sabeniano was denied permission to file a letter seeking assistance enforcing a foreign judgment. The existing filing injunction continues to require court permission before Plaintiff may file motions or begin an action against Citibank, N.A. or Citigroup, Inc. to enforce any judgment from the Philippines.

What happened

In Sabeniano v. Citibank, N.A., Plaintiff asked for permission to file a letter seeking help enforcing a foreign judgment. The case had been closed since September 2017.

The court had previously warned Plaintiff that further frivolous or harassing filings could lead to a filing injunction. In August 2020, it barred Plaintiff from filing motions or starting actions against Defendants to enforce any judgment from the Philippines without first obtaining permission from the court.

Judge Alison J. Nathan denied Plaintiff’s request because of that filing injunction and the reasons given in the court’s August 14, 2020 order. The court also denied fee-free appeal status after finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Sabeniano v. Citibank, N.A. New York · No. 1:16-cv-01723-AJN
Judge
Alison Nathan
Date
June 1, 2021

Background

The case was closed on September 8, 2017. The court had previously warned Plaintiff that further vexatious or frivolous filings against Defendants—including a frivolous request to reconsider an earlier order—could result in a filing injunction.

On August 14, 2020, the court issued that injunction. It barred Plaintiff from filing motions or beginning an action against Defendants to enforce any judgment from the Philippines without first obtaining the court’s permission, regardless of whether Plaintiff paid the filing fee or requested permission to proceed without paying it.

Request and Ruling

On May 26, 2021, the court received a letter from Plaintiff that included a request for permission to file a letter seeking assistance enforcing a foreign judgment. Relying on the filing injunction and the reasons stated in its August 14, 2020 order, the court denied the request.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Plaintiff and record that mailing on the public docket.

Effect

The order denied permission to file the requested letter. It did not decide whether the foreign judgment could be enforced or resolve the underlying dispute between Plaintiff and Defendants.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.