Belmar v. G&M Realty I LLC
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-01576
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Belmar v. G&M Realty, Chief Judge Swain granted another 30-day extension to amend the complaint but denied payment-free status for an appeal.
Rene Belmar, who was representing himself and was required to file an amended complaint within 30 days; the action could be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if he failed to do so without good cause.
What happened
In Belmar v. G&M Realty I LLC, the court gave Rene Belmar another 30 days to file an amended complaint after previously dismissing his complaint and allowing him to amend it.
Belmar, who is representing himself, had already received an initial 30-day period and one additional 30-day extension. He then requested another extension, which the court granted.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered Belmar to file the amended complaint within 30 days of the order. The court warned that the case would be dismissed for lack of authority to hear it if he did not comply and could not show a good reason. The court also denied payment-free appeal status and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Belmar v. G&M Realty I LLC · No. 1:22-cv-01576
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 29, 2022
Background
Rene Belmar brought the action without a lawyer. In an earlier order, the court dismissed his complaint but gave him 30 days to file an amended complaint that would establish the court’s authority to hear the case. On July 28, 2022, the court granted Belmar an additional 30 days. On August 26, 2022, the court received another request for more time.
Ruling
The court granted Belmar’s request for another extension. It directed him to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the August 29 order. The court stated that if he did not comply within that period and could not show good cause—a legally sufficient reason—for the failure, the action would be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court would lack power to decide it.
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. As a result, it denied Belmar permission to appeal without paying the required fees. This order did not itself dismiss the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.