Uppal et al v. Wilkinson et al
| Neelam Uppal |
| Neelam Uppal |
| Barry Wilkinson and Charlene Rodriguez |
| 1:2017cv08510 |
| November 3, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Vernon S. Broderick |
| Appeal |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 0158 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
40
OPINION & ORDER re: 34 MOTION for Reconsideration. filed by Neelam Uppal. For the reasons stated above, Uppal's motion for reconsideration, (Doc. 34), is DENIED. In addition, a filing injunction shall be entered requiring Uppal to s eek leave of this Court before filing any future action in this Court. The Clerk of Court is respectfully instructed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Appellant. 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 purposes of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 44445 (1962). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 11/1/2019) (rro) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
32
OPINION AND ORDER re: 18 FIRST MOTION for Sanctions against Appellant. filed by Charlene Rodriguez. For the foregoing reasons, the decisions of the Bankruptcy Judge are AFFIRMED and Creditors' motion for sanctions is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate all pending motions, mail a copy of this Opinion & Order to the pro se Appellant. In addition, Uppal is ordered to show cause by affirmation why she should not be barred from filing any further ac tions in this Court without first obtaining permission from this Court to file her complaint. See Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 208 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam) ("The unequivocal rule in this circuit is that the district court may not impose a filing injunction on a litigant... without providing the litigant with notice and an opportunity to be heard."). Uppal shall submit to this Court within forty-five (45) days of the date of this Order, a written affirmation setting forth good cause why this injunction should not be imposed upon her by this Court. Should Uppal fail to submit an affirmation within the time directed, or should Uppal's affirmation fail to set forth good cause, she may be barred from filing any further a ctions in this Court without first obtaining permission from this Court to do so. 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 denie d for the purposes of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 44445 (1962). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 9/20/2018) (rro) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
