Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 14, 2025

Buxbaum v. One Finance, Inc.

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-10061
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Buxbaum v. One Finance, Inc., Judge Swain dismissed the duplicative action without prejudice and denied appeal fee-free status.

Who this affects

Michael Buxbaum's action against One Finance, Inc. was dismissed without prejudice because it duplicated his pending earlier action. Buxbaum's request to proceed without paying fees on an appeal was also denied.

What happened

Buxbaum v. One Finance, Inc. was brought by Michael Buxbaum, who represented himself, against One Finance, Inc. The complaint invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction. Buxbaum had already filed a nearly identical case, which remained pending in the same court.

The court found that this action raised the same claims as the earlier case and that litigating both would serve no useful purpose. It dismissed this action without prejudice as duplicative, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal after finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued the order. The court did not decide the underlying claims against One Finance, Inc.; it ended this case because it duplicated the pending earlier action.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Buxbaum v. One Finance, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-10061
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Jan. 14, 2025

Background

Michael Buxbaum, appearing without a lawyer, brought this action against One Finance, Inc., invoking federal-question and diversity jurisdiction. The opinion states that Buxbaum had previously filed another civil action in the same court and that the earlier complaint was virtually identical to the complaint in this case. The earlier action, No. 1:24-CV-9894 (LTS), was still pending.

Reasoning and ruling

The court concluded that this action raised the same claims as the pending earlier action. Because litigating this duplicative case would serve no useful purpose, the court dismissed the action without prejudice as duplicative. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the action. The order does not state that the dismissal itself was with prejudice; it expressly says the action was dismissed without prejudice.

Disposition

The action was dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of the pending earlier case. Fee-free status for an appeal was denied. Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.