Cordero Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-02857
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Cordero Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank, Judge Woods ordered service and a hearing on Cordero Romero’s request to unblock his account.
Michael Cordero Romero and Goldman Sachs Bank doing business as Marcus by Goldman Sachs; the order arranged service and set a hearing on access to Cordero Romero’s account.
What happened
Cordero Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank involves a self-represented plaintiff’s claims under several federal financial laws. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees upfront and directed the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to issue and serve the summons and related papers.
Cordero Romero also requested an emergency order requiring the defendant to unblock his account, restore access, or return $15,600 plus interest. The court found that his papers did not provide the specific facts required to issue an emergency order without first notifying the defendant.
Judge Woods ordered the defendant to explain at a scheduled April 25, 2025 hearing why the account should not be unblocked and access restored. The order did not decide whether Cordero Romero’s underlying claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Cordero Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA · No. 1:25-cv-02857
- Gregory Woods
- Apr. 10, 2025
Background
Michael Cordero Romero, appearing without a lawyer, brought claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Bank Secrecy Act, and the Expedited Funds Availability Act. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
Service of the lawsuit
Because Cordero Romero was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for Goldman Sachs Bank doing business as Marcus by Goldman Sachs, complete the required service form, and provide the necessary documents to the Marshals Service.
The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued. It stated that Cordero Romero should request more time if service is not completed within that period. It also required him to notify the court in writing if his address changes and warned that the case could be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Request for emergency relief
Cordero Romero filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order. He asked the court to direct the defendant to immediately unblock his account, restore his access, and stop obstructing access, or alternatively to return $15,600 plus interest.
A temporary restraining order issued without notifying the opposing party requires specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable harm will occur before the opposing party can be heard. The court found that Cordero Romero’s motion and affidavit did not satisfy that requirement. The court therefore did not issue the requested emergency order without notice.
Instead, the court ordered the defendant to show cause at a hearing on April 25, 2025, why an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 should not require the defendant to immediately unblock the account ending in 1044 and restore Cordero Romero’s access. The order set deadlines for the defendant’s answering papers and any response.
Disposition
The court ordered the Clerk to issue the summons and arrange service through the U.S. Marshals Service. It also ordered the defendant to show cause at the scheduled hearing. The order did not resolve the merits of Cordero Romero’s underlying statutory claims or finally decide whether he was entitled to access to the account.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.