Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 15, 2025

Buxbaum v. One Finance, Inc. dba Walmart

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-10063
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Buxbaum v. One Finance, Judge Swain ordered Michael Buxbaum to pay fees or submit an application to proceed without prepaying them.

Who this affects

Michael Buxbaum must either pay the required fees or submit a signed application to proceed without prepaying them; the case will be dismissed if he does not comply within 30 days. One Finance, Inc. d/b/a Walmart is affected by the delay in issuing a summons and processing the case.

What happened

In Buxbaum v. One Finance, Inc. d/b/a Walmart, Michael Buxbaum filed a civil action without paying the required fees or submitting an application to proceed without prepaying them. He is representing himself.

The court ordered Buxbaum, within 30 days, either to pay $405 in fees or submit a signed application to proceed without prepayment. The court said no summons would issue at that time and warned that the action would be dismissed if he did not comply.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Buxbaum v. One Finance, Inc. dba Walmart · No. 1:24-cv-10063
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Jan. 15, 2025

Background

Michael Buxbaum brought this civil action representing himself. He submitted the complaint without paying the required filing fees and without submitting an application to proceed without prepaying fees, commonly called an IFP application.

Order

The court explained that proceeding with a civil action required either payment of $405— consisting of a $350 filing fee and a $55 administrative fee—or submission of a signed IFP application under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915.

The court ordered Buxbaum to do one of those two things within 30 days of the order. If he submitted the IFP application, he was directed to label it with docket number 1:24-CV-10063 (LTS). The court stated that, if it granted the application, Buxbaum would be allowed to proceed without paying the fees in advance.

No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures if Buxbaum complied. If he did not comply within the allowed time, the action would be dismissed.

Appeal and Scope of Ruling

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The order addressed fees and case processing; it did not decide the merits of Buxbaum’s claims against One Finance, Inc. d/b/a Walmart.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.