Edwards v. Barclays Services Corporation
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-09326
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Edwards v. Barclays Group USA, Inc., Judge Daniels denied Edwards’s motion to disqualify the judges, vacate earlier orders, and schedule a jury trial.
Stephen S. Edwards and Barclays Group USA, Inc.; the ruling also concerns Judge George B. Daniels and Magistrate Judge Gorenstein because Edwards sought their disqualification.
What happened
In Edwards v. Barclays Group USA, Inc., Stephen S. Edwards sued Barclays Group USA, Inc., doing business as Barclays Bank Delaware. In the provided filing, Edwards argued that a merchant had charged more than $7,000 for goods or services that were not provided.
Edwards asked the court to disqualify Judge George B. Daniels and Magistrate Judge Gorenstein, vacate orders dated June 25, 2020, and schedule a jury trial. He argued that the judges had conflicts because of alleged banking relationships involving Barclays and their family members, and that the court had not properly considered his claims.
The docket marking states that the motion was denied. The provided material does not include a separate explanation of the court’s reasoning. Judge Daniels therefore left the challenged orders in place based on the information available here.
The detailed version
- Edwards v. Barclays Services Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-09326
- George Daniels
- July 20, 2020
Background
The provided material is primarily Stephen S. Edwards’s filing titled “Plaintiff’s 2nd Motion to Vacate Orders Dated June 25, 2020 and to Disqualify Because of Conflict of Interest.” The caption identifies Barclays Group USA, Inc., doing business as “Barclays Bank Delaware,” as the defendant. The filing also contains a proof of service concerning Edwards’s response to a motion to dismiss.
Edwards asserted that the court’s prior orders should be vacated because federal questions remained and because Judge George B. Daniels and Magistrate Judge Gorenstein allegedly had direct or indirect banking relationships with Barclays or family members. He also alleged that the court had committed fraud upon the court, had not held a hearing, and had ignored facts. The filing referred to an alleged instance in which a merchant admitted to Barclays that it had double-billed more than $7,000, and asserted that consumers should not have to pay for goods and services they never received.
Requested Relief
Edwards requested three forms of relief: disqualification of Judge Daniels and Magistrate Judge Gorenstein; vacation of the June 25, 2020 orders; and a jury trial. These statements describe Edwards’s requests and arguments, not findings by the court.
Ruling
A docket marking on the provided document states “DENIED MOTION.” Accordingly, the motion to disqualify, vacate the earlier orders, and set the matter for a jury trial was denied. The provided material does not contain a separate written explanation of the ruling, and it does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice. The ruling is a procedural order addressing disqualification, reconsideration or vacation of earlier orders, and trial scheduling; it does not, in the material provided, decide the underlying dispute on its merits.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.