Vorburger
United State of Humanity Player / Participant AV (Alexander Vorburger) u. — Understanding — Player / Participant RKRPM (Rock Katnic Representing Perfect Moving)
- Ho
- 1:25-cv-06387
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 25
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
Player / Participant AV v. Player / Participant RKRPM: the court denied the request to stop arbitration; the court declined sanctions and closed the filing.
Alexander Vorburger, who remained subject to the court’s arbitration ruling and received a denial of his request to stop arbitration. The court declined sanctions at that time but warned that future noncompliance or repeated reconsideration motions could lead to sanctions, including dismissal.
What happened
In United State of Humanity Player / Participant AV v. Player / Participant RKRPM, Alexander Vorburger asked the court to stop arbitration and requested broader relief involving a new dispute-resolution system, Congress, housing conditions, investigations, and his claims against Perfect Moving. The order addressed only the request to stop arbitration.
The court denied that request, relying on earlier orders and related proceedings in which Vorburger had challenged arbitration. The court declined to impose sanctions at that time because the filing was delayed in docketing, but warned that further reconsideration motions or failures to follow court orders could lead to sanctions, including dismissal.
The court did not identify a judge by name in the provided order. It directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket No. 112.
The detailed version
- Vorburger · No. 1:25-cv-06387
- Ho
- Aug. 27, 2026
Background
Alexander Vorburger filed a submission titled a motion to “uncompel” arbitration. The filing also asked for relief concerning a proposed system called Humanity.exe, a new dispute-resolution forum, congressional action, correction of docket chronology, permission to pursue claims and a complaint addendum, additional time to find counsel, protection and investigation at a Jersey City address, and investigations into various financial and governmental matters.
The filing argued that an exemption in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act should continue to prevent arbitration after the court had compelled arbitration and stayed the federal case. It cited Supreme Court and Second Circuit decisions concerning the transportation-worker exemption and arbitration. The filing also stated that Vorburger was preserving arguments raised in earlier filings.
Ruling
The court stated that Vorburger’s request to “uncompel arbitration,” identified as docketed at Docket No. 112, was DENIED. The court said Vorburger had unsuccessfully challenged the order compelling arbitration on numerous occasions. It relied on earlier orders and prior related proceedings, without restating the full names of those earlier proceedings in this summary.
The court also addressed sanctions. An earlier order had warned that repeatedly filing motions the court had already denied could result in sanctions. The court declined to impose sanctions at that time, citing Vorburger’s self-represented status and the fact that the request, dated August 20, 2026, was not docketed until August 26, 2026. The court nevertheless reminded Vorburger that no further motions for reconsideration would be considered and that failure to comply with court orders could result in sanctions, including dismissal.
Finally, the court directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket No. 112. The provided text does not identify the judge who issued or signed this order; references to “Judge Ho” appear in Vorburger’s filing and concern an earlier ruling or docketing events, not an identified signer of this order.
Read the full 25-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.