Buxbaum v. Sommer
- Vargas
- 1:24-cv-09546
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Buxbaum v. Sommer, Judge Vargas dismissed the case with prejudice after repeated threats and abusive conduct despite a warning.
Michael Buxbaum’s case against Adam Daniel Sommer and Cari Joy Sommer was dismissed with prejudice. The defendants no longer had to continue litigating this case, and no filing injunction was imposed at this time.
What happened
In Buxbaum v. Sommer, Michael Buxbaum repeatedly sent abusive messages and threats of violence to Adam and Cari Sommer and their lawyer. The opinion also describes threats to kill Adam Sommer and demands for money made under threats of violence.
The court had warned Buxbaum that further malicious, harassing, or threatening conduct could lead to immediate dismissal. After the threats continued, the court found that Buxbaum had acted maliciously, in bad faith, wantonly, and vexatiously, and that no lesser punishment would stop the misconduct.
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas dismissed the case with prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close it. The judge declined to impose a filing ban at that time but warned that further improper conduct could lead to a requirement that Buxbaum obtain permission before filing new actions.
The detailed version
- Buxbaum v. Sommer · No. 1:24-cv-09546
- Vargas
- Apr. 15, 2025
Background
The court stated that Michael Buxbaum had filed more than 100 cases in the district since mid-December 2024. Defendants’ counsel reported that Buxbaum had directed abusive language and threats of violence at Adam Sommer, Cari Joy Sommer, and counsel. The reported communications included threats to have the defendants killed, threats to shoot Adam Sommer, profanity, death-scene video clips, and demands for money connected to threats of violence.
On March 31, 2025, the court warned Buxbaum that additional malicious, harassing, or threatening conduct could result in immediate dismissal of the case with prejudice, meaning the case would be terminated and could not be refiled. The warning also stated that the court could bar further filings in the district. Buxbaum did not respond to that order. Defendants’ counsel later reported additional threats and abusive communications sent on April 7 and 8, 2025.
Court’s Analysis
The court relied on its inherent power—the authority federal courts have to protect their proceedings and address serious litigation misconduct—as well as the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. The court explained that dismissal may be used as a sanction when a party acts in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons, and that a warning is generally required before dismissing a self-represented litigant’s case for misconduct.
The court found that Buxbaum’s conduct continued despite the March 31 warning and showed disregard for the court’s authority. It characterized his repeated verbal abuse, death threats, and demands for money under threats of violence as malicious, in bad faith, wanton, and vexatious. The court considered whether a lesser sanction would deter future misconduct but concluded that no sanction short of dismissal would stop the behavior and that requiring the defendants to continue litigating would be severely prejudicial.
Ruling
The court dismissed the case with prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close it. Although the court stated that the circumstances could justify a filing injunction, it declined to impose one at that time. It warned Buxbaum that further improper conduct—including additional meritless or vexatious cases or harassing or threatening communications to the court or people involved in district cases—could result in an order barring him from filing new actions without prior permission.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.