Hayes v. ASCAP (NFPO) (inc)

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 10, 2024·No. 1:24-cv-01883·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ARIKA A. HAYES, Plaintiff, 24-CV-1883 (LTS) -against- ORDER ACAP, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff filed this action pro se. On March 25, 2024, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a signed in forma pauperis (IFP) application. On May 29, 2024, the Court dismissed the action on the ground that Plaintiff had not done so. Plaintiff then filed an application (ECF 12) indicating that she had filed a signed IFP application, which was included as part of her amended complaint.1 The Court liberally construes this submission as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After reviewing the arguments in Plaintiff’s submission, the Court grants the motion. DISCUSSION A party who moves to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) must demonstrate that the Court overlooked “controlling law or factual matters” that had been previously put before it. R.F.M.A.S., Inc. v. Mimi So, 640 F. Supp. 2d 506, 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “Such motions must be narrowly construed and strictly applied in order to discourage litigants from making repetitive arguments on issues that have been thoroughly considered by the court.” Range Road Music, Inc.

1 The signed IFP application is at pages 58 and 60 of the 85-page amended complaint (ECF 8). Another unsigned IFP application was also included within the amended complaint. v. Music Sales Corp., 90 F. Supp. 2d 390, 391-92 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); see also SimplexGrinnell LP v. Integrated Sys. & Power, Inc., 642 F. Supp. 2d 206 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“A motion for reconsideration is not an invitation to parties to ‘treat the court’s initial decision as the opening of a dialogue in which that party may then use such a motion to advance new theories or adduce

new evidence in response to the court’s ruling.’”) (internal quotation and citations omitted). Moreover, a motion filed under Rule 59(e) “must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Id. The action was dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order directing her to pay the filing fees or submit a signed IFP application. Plaintiff submitted her Rule 59(e) motion on June 3, 2024, less than 28 days after judgment entered. For unknown reasons, Plaintiff’s signed IFP application was included in the middle of her amended complaint, at pages 58 and 60, making it difficult to identify. Because Plaintiff did submit a signed IFP application, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion (ECF 12) and directs the Clerk of Court to vacate the order of dismissal and judgment.

CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) (ECF 12) is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to vacate the order of dismissal and judgment (ECF 10-11) and reopen this action. The Clerk of Court is further directed to file Plaintiff’s signed IFP application (attached hereto) as an amended IFP application. Plaintiff also indicates that she intended to name Defendant ASCAP, not “ACAP.” The Court therefore directs the Clerk of Court to change Defendant’s name on the docket to ASCAP. 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. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2024 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Ant ia ayes: (full name of the plaintiff or petitioner applying (each person must submit a separate application)) Zy CV- 1823 ys) CS) -against- (Provide docket number, if available; if filing this with your complaint, you will not yet have a docket number.) □ Aséap CNFPOD

(full name(s) of the defendant(s)/respondent(s)) APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS Iam a plaintiff/petitioner in this case and declare that ] am unable to pay the costs of these proceedings and I believe that I am entitled to the relief requested in this action. In support of this application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) (without prepaying fees or costs), I declare that the responses below are true: 1. Are you incarcerated? LJ Yes No (If “No,” go to Question 2.) Tam being held at: Do you receive any payment from this institution? [| Yes [] No Monthly amount If am a prisoner, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), I have attached to this document a “Prisoner Authorization” directing the facility where | am incarcerated to deduct the filing fee from my account in installments and to send to the Court certified copies of my account statements for the past six months. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), (b). | understand that this means that I will be required to pay the full filing fee. 2. Are you presently employed? [] Yes No If “yes,” my employer’s name and address are:

Gross monthly pay or wages: If “no,” what was your last date of employment? □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ bast Gross monthly wages at the time: 3. Inaddition to your income stated above (which you should not repeat here), have you or anyone else living at the same residence as you received more than $200 in the past 12 months from any of the following sources? Check all that apply. (a) Business, profession, or other self-employment Yes No (b) Rent payments, interest, or dividends [] Yes [] No

SDNY Rev: 8/5/2015

No (c) Pension, annuity, or life insurance payments L] Yes L] No (d) Disability or worker’s compensation payments L] Yes [] No (e) Gifts or inheritances L] Yes [] No (f) Any other public benefits (unemployment, social security, Yes OC No food stamps, veteran’s, etc.) (g) Any other sources L] Yes No If you answered “Yes” to any question above, describe below or on separate pages each source of money and state the amount that you received and what you expect to receive in the future. Na

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hayes v. ASCAP (NFPO) (inc), (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Hayes v. ASCAP (NFPO) (inc) (Hayes v. ASCAP (NFPO) (inc)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Simplexgrinnell Lp v. Integrated Systems & Power, Inc.
642 F. Supp. 2d 206 (S.D. New York, 2009)
R.F.M.A.S., Inc. v. Mimi So
640 F. Supp. 2d 506 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Range Road Music, Inc. v. Music Sales Corp.
90 F. Supp. 2d 390 (S.D. New York, 2000)