Buxbaum v. Buxbaum
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-00611
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Buxbaum v. Buxbaum, Judge Swain dismissed Michael Buxbaum’s duplicate complaint without prejudice to his pending case.
Michael Buxbaum’s duplicate lawsuit was dismissed, while his pending action under docket number 25-CV-0457 was not dismissed by this order. Stewart Buxbaum was the named defendant. The order also warned Michael Buxbaum that repetitive filings could lead to filing restrictions or other sanctions.
What happened
Michael Buxbaum, who represented himself, sued Stewart Buxbaum in the Southern District of New York. The court said Michael had already filed a substantially similar complaint against the same defendant, which remained pending under docket number 25-CV-0457.
The court dismissed this complaint as duplicative because litigating both cases would serve no useful purpose. The dismissal was without prejudice to Michael’s pending case. The court also warned that repeatedly filing duplicate or otherwise abusive lawsuits could lead to restrictions on future filings or other penalties.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the clerk to enter judgment. She also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Michael permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Buxbaum v. Buxbaum · No. 1:25-cv-00611
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 22, 2025
Background
Michael Buxbaum, appearing without a lawyer, brought claims against Stewart Buxbaum. The opinion states that Michael had previously submitted a substantially similar complaint against the same defendant. That earlier action was pending in the same court under docket number 25-CV-0457.
Reason for dismissal
The court determined that the present action raised the same claim as the pending case. Because the two lawsuits were duplicative, the court concluded that no useful purpose would be served by litigating this action.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint as duplicative of the action under docket number 25-CV-0457. The dismissal was without prejudice to Michael Buxbaum’s pending case. The court also noted that Michael had filed more than forty cases since December 9, 2024, and cautioned that repetitive or duplicative filings, or otherwise abusive multiplication of lawsuits, could result in a prefiling injunction or other sanctions. A prefiling injunction may require a litigant to obtain permission before filing certain new actions.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the clerk to enter judgment. Under the statute cited in the order, the court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.