Obergh v. Building Maintenance Services LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-05053
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Obergh v. Building Maintenance Services LLC, Chief Judge Swain ordered the plaintiffs to pay $402 or correct their incomplete fee-waiver applications within 30 days.
Plaintiffs Mayra Obergh and Ivonne Brito, whose requests to proceed without paying court fees upfront were not decided because their financial applications were incomplete.
What happened
In Obergh v. Building Maintenance Services LLC, Mayra Obergh and Ivonne Brito asked to start their case without paying court fees upfront. The court found that their applications did not clearly and fully provide the financial information needed to decide whether they qualified.
The court gave each plaintiff 30 days to either pay the total $402 filing and administrative fees or submit a separate, complete, signed application with answers to all financial questions. The court said the case would be dismissed if they did not comply.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain also stated that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Obergh v. Building Maintenance Services LLC · No. 1:21-cv-05053
- Valerie Caproni
- June 14, 2021
Background
Mayra Obergh and Ivonne Brito brought this action without lawyers and each asked to proceed without paying the filing fees upfront. The court explained that starting a civil action required $402: a $350 filing fee and a $52 administrative fee.
Problems with the applications
The court found that neither plaintiff had clearly and fully answered the financial questions needed to decide whether she could pay the fees.
Obergh stated that she was employed but did not provide her employer's name or address. She listed possible monthly earnings of either $981 or $12,000 and reported receiving rent, interest, or dividend payments and pension, annuity, or life-insurance payments without stating the amounts. She also did not answer questions about money in a bank account, other assets, or the amounts of her regular monthly expenses.
Brito likewise stated that she was employed but did not provide her employer's name or address. She listed possible monthly earnings of $2,800, $3,600, or $12,000. She reported receiving rent, interest, or dividend payments without identifying their sources or amounts. She stated that she had $3,000 in a bank account and no expenses.
Order
The court ordered that, within 30 days of the order, the plaintiffs must either pay the total $402 in fees or each complete, sign, and submit a separate amended application to proceed without paying fees upfront. Each amended application had to fully disclose the plaintiff's financial status, clearly answer every question, and identify docket number 1:21-CV-5053 (LTS). The court noted that if the amended applications showed that either plaintiff had enough money to pay the fees, payment could still be required.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to each plaintiff and record service on the docket. It stated that the action would be processed if the plaintiffs complied and would be dismissed if they did not comply within the allowed time. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not reach the merits of the plaintiffs' underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.