Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 21, 2023

Woodmont Ramapo, LLC v. Parks

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:23-cv-00594
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
10
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

Woodmont Ramapo v. Parks: Judge Briccetti set briefing on remand and denied fee-free appeal status.

Who this affects

Anthony Parks must respond to Woodmont Ramapo, LLC's motion to remand by May 5, 2023; Woodmont Ramapo, LLC may reply by May 12, 2023. Parks was denied permission to proceed without paying court fees for an appeal from this order.

What happened

In Woodmont Ramapo, LLC v. Parks, Anthony Parks removed the action from the Justice Court of the Town of Ramapo while representing himself and proceeding without paying court fees. Woodmont Ramapo, LLC asked the federal court to send the case back to state court, and Parks had not responded.

The court ordered Parks to respond to the request by May 5, 2023. Woodmont Ramapo, LLC may file a reply by May 12, 2023. The court also sent Parks a guide explaining motion procedures.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti did not decide the request to send the case back to state court in this order. He certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying court fees for an appeal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Woodmont Ramapo, LLC v. Parks · No. 7:23-cv-00594
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Apr. 21, 2023

Background

On January 23, 2023, Anthony Parks, representing himself and proceeding without paying court fees, removed the action from the Justice Court of the Town of Ramapo to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On March 17, 2023, Woodmont Ramapo, LLC moved to remand, meaning to return the action to state court. The opinion states that Parks had not yet responded.

Order

The court ordered Parks to file his response to the motion to remand by May 5, 2023. Woodmont Ramapo, LLC may file a reply by May 12, 2023. The court attached a motions guide for people representing themselves and directed its chambers to mail a copy of the order to Parks at the address listed on the docket.

Appeal Status and Disposition

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Parks permission to proceed without paying court fees for an appeal. This order did not rule on the motion to remand; it established a schedule for the parties' submissions. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 10-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.