Pearl Asset Management LLC v. Bretz Group
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-10687
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pearl Asset Management v. Bretz Group, Chief Judge Swain dismissed the case without prejudice because no attorney appeared and required fees were unpaid.
Pearl Asset Management LLC's complaint was dismissed without prejudice because no attorney appeared on its behalf and the required filing fees were not paid. The opinion does not describe any ruling on the claims against Bretz Group or the other defendants.
What happened
Pearl Asset Management LLC filed a case against Bretz Group and other defendants without indicating that an attorney represented it. The court also said Pearl had not paid the $405 filing fees.
The court had warned Pearl that the case would be dismissed without prejudice unless an attorney appeared for it and the fees were paid within 30 days. Neither requirement was met, so the complaint was dismissed without prejudice. The court did not address the underlying claims.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the clerk to enter judgment and denied fee-waiver status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Pearl Asset Management LLC v. Bretz Group · No. 1:23-cv-10687
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 18, 2024
Background
Pearl Asset Management LLC filed the action without indicating that it was represented by an attorney. The opinion states that Pearl filed the action without a lawyer and did not pay the $405.00 filing fee required to bring it.
In an order dated December 12, 2023, the court told Pearl that the case would be dismissed without prejudice unless, within 30 days, an attorney representing Pearl filed a notice of appearance and Pearl paid the filing fees. No attorney filed a notice of appearance, and the fees remained unpaid.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal itself does not bar a later filing, although the opinion does not address what requirements might apply to any later filing.
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. It therefore denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal and directed the clerk to enter judgment. The order did not decide the underlying claims against Bretz Group or the other defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.