Langston v. Con Edison

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WILLOUR OTHELLO LANGSTON; SHARILYN CATHERINE LANGSTON, Plaintiffs, 25-CV-3882 (LTS) -against- ORDER CONSOLIDATED EDISON, INC.; CONED; TIM CAWLEY; MATT KETSCHKE; YUKARI SAEGUSA; KIRKLAND B. ANDREWS, Defendants.

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: On May 6, 2025, Plaintiffs filed this pro se action, asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and naming as defendants Consolidated Edison, Inc., “ConEd,” and Consolidated Edison employees Tim Cawley, Matt Ketschke, Yukari Saegusa, and Kirkland B. Andrews. On May 1, 2025 – five days before Plaintiffs filed this action – they filed a pro se action in which they named “Con Edison” as the sole defendant,1 and alleged most, if not all, of the facts alleged in the complaint commencing this action. See Langston v. Con Edison, ECF 1:25-CV-3807, 1 (complaint).

In the interests of judicial economy, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to file the complaint in this action (ECF 1:25-CV-3882, 1) as an amended complaint in Langston, No 25- CV-3807, with a filing date of May 6, 2025. The Court also directs the Clerk of Court to docket the Consent to Electronic Service form filed in this action (ECF: 1:25-CV-3882, 2), and a copy of this order, in Langston, No. 25-CV-3807.

1 The Court understands Consolidated Edison, Inc., ConEd, and Con Edison to be the same entity.

The Court further directs the Clerk of Court to administratively close this action.. 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 14, 2025 New York, New York /s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge