Sabeniano v. Citibank, N.A. New York
Plaintiff: Modesta R. Sabeniano
Defendant: Citibank, N.A. New York
Case Number: 1:2016cv01723
Filed: March 7, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: XX Out of State
Presiding Judge: Unassigned
Nature of Suit: Recovery of Overpayment and Enforcement of Judgment
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: None
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
September 28, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 98 ORDER: The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to note that mailing on the public docket. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in go od faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 44445 (1962). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/28/2021) (ks) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
July 27, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 95 ORDER re: 92 Letter filed by Modesta R. Sabeniano. On May 26, 2021, the Court received a letter from Plaintiff that, among other things, requested leave to file a letter seeking assistance to collect on a foreign judgment. Dkt. No. 94. This Cour t's June 1 Order details the history of this case and thus the Court will not repeat it here. Dkt. No. 93. In light of the filing injunction and for the reasons stated in the Court's August 14, 2020 order and June 1, 2021 order, Plaintiff&# 039;s request for leave to file a letter with the Court seeking enforcement of a foreign judgment is DENIED. Plaintiff is advised that the filing injunction cannot be circumvented by addressing letters to other members of this Court. The Clerk of Cou rt is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to note that mailing on the public docket. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in fo rma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 44445 (1962). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/27/2021) (vfr) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. Modified on 7/27/2021 (vfr).
June 1, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 93 ORDER: In light of the filing injunction and for the reasons stated in the Court's August 14, 2020 order, Plaintiff's request for leave to file a letter with the Court seeking enforcement of a foreign judgment is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to note that mailing on the public docket. The Court certifies, pursuant to 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). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 6/01/2021) (ama) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
May 24, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 91 ORDER. On May 24, 2021, the Court received the attached letter by mail, which appears to be identical to the document it received by email on April 27, 2021. Dkt. No. 90. As indicated in the April 27, 2021 order, the Court will take no further action. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 5/24/2021) (rjm)
April 27, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 90 ORDER. On April 27, 2021, the Court received the attached email, along with its corresponding attachments, from a non-party. This case is closed. The Court will take no action with respect to the communication. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 4/27/2021) (rjm)
February 9, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 89 ORDER. On February 8, 2021, the Court received by mail a letter from the pro se Plaintiff. To the extent that the Plaintiff seeks leave to file the letter in light of the filing injunction that the Court entered on August 14, 2020, see Dkt. No. 81, t hat request is denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to note that mailing on the public docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/9/2021) (rjm) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
January 14, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 88 ORDER: The present request is DENIED for the reasons the Court articulated in its November 19, 2020 and December 8, 2020 orders. See Dkt. Nos. 86, 87. IT IS ORDERED that the Court will not entertain any new motions to enforce the judgment , having now ruled on the matter multiple times. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to note that mailing on the public docket. The Court certifies, pursuant to 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, 44445 (1962). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/14/2021) (va) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
December 8, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 87 ORDER: On December 7, 2020, Court received by mail the attached letter from the pro se Plaintiff. The Court construes Plaintiff's letter as requesting leave to file another motion against Defendants in order to enforce a foreign judgment. That request is DENIED. The Plaintiff is hereby advised that the Court will not entertain any new motions to enforce the judgment, having now ruled on the matter multiple times. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Pla intiff and to note that mailing on the public docket. The Court certifies, pursuant to 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, 44445 (1962). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/8/2020) (jca) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
November 19, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 86 ORDER: denying 85 Motion for Reconsideration. On October 30, 2020, the pro se Plaintiff filed a motion styled as a "Manifestation & Motion for Reconsideration Aug. 14, 2020 Order w/ Urgent PLEA to Leave of Court the Recognition and Enforceme nt 18 Years." Dkt. No. 85. The motion is denied. Plaintiff is hereby advised that any future filings made without first obtaining Court permission shall result in additional sanctions. Any such request for judicial permission to file additional documents must be made by filing a letter that is not to exceed one page. The Court will not entertain further motions to enforce the judgment, as per the filing injunction. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and note that mailing on the public docket. The Court certifies, pursuant to 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). And as set forth herein. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/19/2020) (ama) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
September 17, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 84 ORDER denying 83 Motion for Leave to Appeal. As a result, to the extent that Dkt. No. 83 is properly construed as a motion to have the letter signed by the Plaintiff's son deemed an effective Notice of Appeal signed by the Plaintiff herself , that motion is DENIED. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), a notice of appeal must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the order appealed from. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4( a)(5), however, allows the district court to extend a party's time to file a notice of appeal. Accordingly, the Plaintiff may re submit a corrected Notice of Appeal, signed by the Plaintiff herself, for the Courts consideration. This resolves Dkt. No. 83. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/17/2020) (kv)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Sabeniano v. Citibank, N.A. New York
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Modesta R. Sabeniano
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Citibank, N.A. New York
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?