Buxbaum v. Payward, Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-00361
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Buxbaum v. Payward, Judge Swain ordered a $405 refund after dismissal for nonpayment and kept the action closed.
Michael Buxbaum receives a $405 refund, but his action against Payward, Inc. remains closed. The order also denies him permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
What happened
In Buxbaum v. Payward, Inc., Michael Buxbaum sued Payward, Inc., doing business as Kraken, without a lawyer. The court ordered him to pay the $405 filing fee or apply to proceed without paying it upfront, but he did neither, so the action was dismissed and judgment was entered.
Buxbaum later sent the court a $405 money order. The court had directed the clerk to return it, but the clerk’s office processed it by mistake. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the clerk to refund $405 to Buxbaum and stated that the action remains closed. She also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Buxbaum v. Payward, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-00361
- Laura Swain
- May 5, 2025
Background
Michael Buxbaum brought this action without a lawyer against Payward, Inc., doing business as Kraken. On January 17, 2025, the court ordered Buxbaum within 30 days either to pay the $405 fee required to bring a civil action or to submit an application to proceed without paying fees upfront. Buxbaum did not comply. The court therefore dismissed the action by an order dated March 12, 2025, entered March 14, 2025, and the Clerk of Court entered judgment that day.
On May 1, 2025, the court received Buxbaum’s $405 money order. That same day, the court directed the Clerk of Court to return the money order. The clerk’s office inadvertently processed it instead.
Ruling
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue Buxbaum a $405 refund. The court stated that the action remains closed. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
The opinion does not address the merits of Buxbaum’s underlying claims. It states that Buxbaum may pursue those claims by filing a new civil action and paying the required fees within the prescribed time.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.