Buxbaum v. Rockland County
- Nelson Roman
- 7:25-cv-02088
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Buxbaum v. County of Rockland, Judge Roman denied Michael Buxbaum’s listed requests without prejudice and required a response to the County’s pending requests.
Michael Buxbaum’s requests for summary judgment, emergency relief, and subpoena-related relief were denied without prejudice to renew. The County of Rockland’s requests for a pre-motion conference and a gatekeeper order remained pending because the court directed Buxbaum to respond.
What happened
In Buxbaum v. County of Rockland, the County asked for a conference about a proposed dismissal motion, a filing restriction, and several motions by Michael Buxbaum. The County also argued that Buxbaum’s False Claims Act complaint was insufficient, but the court did not decide that proposed dismissal request.
The court directed Buxbaum to respond to the County’s requests for a conference and a filing restriction. It denied without prejudice several requests for summary judgment, emergency relief, and subpoenas because they were premature, lacked required legal support, or did not follow the court’s rules. A denial without prejudice allows the requests to be renewed.
Judge Nelson Roman also directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 15. The order did not decide the County’s proposed dismissal motion or gatekeeper request.
The detailed version
- Buxbaum v. Rockland County · No. 7:25-cv-02088
- Nelson Roman
- Apr. 25, 2025
Background
The County of Rockland sent the court a letter requesting a pre-motion conference about a proposed motion to dismiss Michael Buxbaum’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The County also requested a “gatekeeper order” that would require Buxbaum to obtain advance court approval before filing additional lawsuits without a lawyer. The County argued that Buxbaum’s False Claims Act allegations were not sufficiently detailed and that his complaint did not satisfy statutory requirements for a government-enforcement lawsuit. Those arguments were made in the County’s letter; the court did not rule on the proposed dismissal motion in this endorsement.
Before the court ruled, Buxbaum had filed requests for summary judgment, requests for emergency relief without notifying the opposing side, and letters seeking signatures on a subpoena. The court stated that the summary-judgment requests were premature and did not comply with the court’s Individual Rules of Practice. It stated that the emergency-relief requests lacked a legal basis, did not explain why emergency action without notice was appropriate, did not comply with the court’s rules, and lacked an affidavit supporting the requested relief. The court also found that the subpoena-related letters did not comply with its rules and were otherwise improper.
Rulings
The court directed Buxbaum to respond to the County’s requests for a pre-motion conference and a gatekeeper order. It did not grant or deny those requests in this endorsement.
The court stated that it would dismiss Buxbaum’s requests for summary judgment and emergency relief at ECF Nos. 13, 15, 19, 23, 25, 27, 28, and 29 without prejudice to renew. In a later operative paragraph, however, the court said that Buxbaum’s requests at ECF Nos. 13, 15, 17, 19, 23, 25, 26, and 28 were denied without prejudice to renew. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 15. The endorsement did not state a final ruling on the complaint’s claims or on the County’s proposed motion to dismiss. Judge Nelson S. Roman signed the April 25, 2025 endorsement.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.