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

Buxbaum v. Rocco's Italian Cuisine & Pizza

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-00610
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Buxbaum v. Rocco’s Italian Cuisine & Pizza, Chief Judge Swain dismissed the complaint after Michael Buxbaum asked to withdraw it.

Who this affects

Michael Buxbaum’s complaint against Rocco’s Italian Cuisine & Pizza was voluntarily dismissed at Buxbaum’s request. The order also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

What happened

Michael Buxbaum told the court in a letter that he wished to withdraw his complaint against Rocco’s Italian Cuisine & Pizza.

The court granted Buxbaum’s request and voluntarily dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). The order does not address the underlying allegations.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
Buxbaum v. Rocco's Italian Cuisine & Pizza · No. 1:25-cv-00610
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Mar. 14, 2025

Background

On January 23, 2025, the court received a letter from Michael Buxbaum stating that he wished to withdraw his complaint against Rocco’s Italian Cuisine & Pizza.

Ruling

The court granted Buxbaum’s request to withdraw the action. It voluntarily dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). The order does not decide the underlying dispute.

Appeal-Fee Ruling

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.

Disposition

The request to withdraw the action was granted, and the complaint was voluntarily dismissed. The court separately denied in forma pauperis status for an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.