Prince v. TD Bank N.A.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00660
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Prince v. TD Bank N.A., Judge McMahon denied confirmation of an arbitration award for lack of jurisdiction, no agreement to arbitrate, and frivolousness.
Jeffrey Prince and the defendants listed in the action, including TD Bank N.A., Riaz E. Ahmed, Manjit Sing, and TB Bank Group/TD Bank.
What happened
In Prince v. TD Bank N.A., Jeffrey Prince asked the court to confirm an arbitration award against the listed defendants. The court previously ordered him to explain why it should not deny that request.
Prince did not file the required declaration or otherwise respond to the order. The court therefore denied his motion because it lacked authority to consider it, the defendants had not agreed to arbitration, and the motion was frivolous.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon closed the case. She also denied fee-free appeal status after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Prince v. TD Bank N.A. · No. 1:20-cv-00660
- Colleen McMahon
- May 26, 2020
Background
Jeffrey Prince moved to confirm an arbitration award. In an earlier order dated March 23, 2020, the court directed Prince to show why it should consider the motion despite three stated concerns: the court might lack subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the matter; the defendants had not agreed to arbitrate; and the motion was frivolous.
Response to the Order
The court gave Prince 30 days to respond and warned that failing to do so would result in denial of the motion for those reasons. The opinion states that Prince did not file a declaration or otherwise show cause.
Ruling
Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon denied Prince’s motion to confirm the arbitration award because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, the defendants did not agree to arbitrate, and the motion was frivolous. The court directed the clerk to mail the order to Prince and record service on the docket. The order states that it closes the action.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.