FLORES v. CITIBANK, N.A.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VALERIE FLORES, Plaintiff, 1:24-CV-3665 (LTS) -against- ORDER CITIBANK, N.A., Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: By order dated August 19, 2024, and entered on August 22, 2024, the Court dismissed this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but granted Plaintiff 30 days’ leave to replead her claims in an amended complaint. (ECF 8.) Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. Thus, in a judgment dated and entered on November 8, 2024, the Court dismissed this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF 9). Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on December 6, 2024 (ECF 10), and her appeal of the dismissal of this action is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, see Flores v. Citibank N.A., 24-3304 (2d Cir.). On May 2, 2025 – five months and twenty-four days after the judgment dismissing this action was entered – Plaintiff filed the present motion “to seal case caption and the entirety of the case to include all documents and to remove [the] case from any legal website and . . . from search engines such as Google, Bing, etc.” (ECF 13, at 1.) She asserts that she brings this motion “for various job related reasons and other factors.” (Id.) This action commenced when Plaintiff filed her complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on December 26, 2023, and this action was entered on this court’s publicly available electronic docket on May 13, 2024, following its transfer to this court – 11 months and 19 days before Plaintiff filed the present motion on May 2, 2025. This action has been a matter of public record in this court since it was entered on this court’s publicly available electronic docket on May 13, 2024. Thus, any of Plaintiff’s concerns arising from the filing of this action, or from the information contained in any of the court filings in this action, have no legal relevance now that this action and its court filings have been available on this court’s publicly available electronic docket since May 13, 2024. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.1 (ECF 13.) The Court certifies, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an

appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: May 30, 2025 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

1 Even if the Court did grant Plaintiff’s motion insofar as sealing the docket of this action and all of the submissions filed in this action, the Court has no authority to remove any information about this action already gathered by private internet platforms.