Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 20, 2023

Friedman v. Bartell

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:22-cv-07630
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Friedman v. Bartell, Judge Seibel ordered service on Harvey Bachman and denied fee-free status for any appeal.

Who this affects

The order affects Robert Joseph Friedman, Harvey Bachman, and the Clerk of Court. It directs international service of the summons and amended complaint on Bachman and denies permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees.

What happened

In Friedman v. Bartell, Robert Joseph Friedman told the court that the address previously provided for Harvey Bachman was incorrect. The court had previously ordered that Bachman receive the summons and amended complaint by international mail.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to send those documents to Bachman at the new address in Bet Shemesh, Israel. It also directed the Clerk to mail a copy of the order to Friedman.

Judge Cathy Seibel certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Friedman permission to appeal without paying the required filing fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
Friedman v. Bartell · No. 7:22-cv-07630
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Oct. 20, 2023

Background

The court had previously ordered the Clerk of Court to send a summons and amended complaint to Defendant Harvey Bachman by international mail. Friedman later notified the court that the address previously provided for Bachman was incorrect.

Court’s Order

The court directed the Clerk of Court to send Bachman a copy of the summons and amended complaint by international mail at the new address listed in Bet Shemesh, Israel. The court also directed the Clerk to mail a copy of the order to Friedman.

Appeal Determination

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without prepaying the required fees. The order addressed service and appeal status; it did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.