Cordero Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-02857
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cordero Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Judge Woods denied a motion to appoint a special master over an arbitration dispute.
Michael Cordero Romero and Goldman Sachs Bank USA; the order directly decided Romero’s request for a special master and his fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Cordero Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Michael Cordero Romero asked the court to appoint a special master under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53. The requested master would have addressed the issue of whether Romero entered a binding arbitration agreement when opening a bank account with Goldman Sachs Bank USA.
The court said appointing a special master was not justified because the arbitration-agreement issue was not an exceptional condition requiring one. It also said a special master would create unreasonable expense and delay, including because one or more parties would have to pay the master.
Judge Woods denied the application. He also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied in forma pauperis, or fee-free, status for an appeal. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Cordero Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA · No. 1:25-cv-02857
- Gregory Woods
- Aug. 5, 2025
Background
On August 4, 2025, Michael Cordero Romero filed a motion asking the court to appoint a special master under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53. A special master is a person appointed by a court to perform specified trial, fact-finding, accounting, or pretrial or posttrial duties.
The order identifies the relevant dispute as whether Romero entered into a binding arbitration agreement when he opened a bank account with Goldman Sachs Bank USA. Romero asserted that he was capable of and knowledgeable about the technical issues involved.
Reasoning
Rule 53 allows appointment of a special master only in specified circumstances, including when the parties consent, when an exceptional condition exists, when an accounting or difficult damages calculation is needed, or when pretrial or posttrial matters cannot be handled effectively and promptly by an available district judge or magistrate judge. The court also noted that it must consider the fairness of imposing the likely costs on the parties and protect against unreasonable expense or delay.
The court determined that the arbitration-agreement issue was not an exceptional condition warranting a special master. It stated that it would evaluate the evidence and arguments fairly as a neutral adjudicator and found that appointing a special master would impose unreasonable expense and delay.
Ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied Romero’s application for appointment of a special master. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket No. 101.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.